1001 Smart Cities
🇺🇸 San Francisco

SFpark Demand-Responsive Parking

🤖 AI-generated summary · ◆ 14 sourced claims · 🔎 Last verified

This overview was generated with AI from the public sources listed below and checked against them before publication. It has not had a complete human fact-check — treat it as a starting point and follow the sources.

14 sourced claims on this page, none individually verified yet — turn on “Sources in the text” to see each one.

How this atlas is made · What “last verified” means · What “source-checked” means · The full record behind this page

In-ground sensors made San Francisco's demand-priced parking possible in 2011, then reached the end of their lives and were switched off. The pricing outlived them on meter-payment data.

Outcome🎯 Succeeded
Evidence🔬 Peer-reviewed
what does this mean?The strongest source behind this entry is an independent peer-reviewed or academic study. It grades who did the looking — not how well the project went. All four grades →
Run bySFMTA
Scale🏙️ City-wide

Part of 1001 Smart Cities — 1,216 documented projects · 🏙️ 9 more in San Francisco · 🅿️ Smart parking guide · 🚲 Mobility projects

San Francisco's SFpark pilot wired 7,000 meters with sensors in 2011 to test prices that rise and fall with demand. The sensors reached the end of their useful lives and were switched off, but the city kept adjusting rates using meter-payment data instead — citywide since 2018, with quarterly rate changes still taking effect in July 2026.

Live 📅 since 2011

📊 Impact

In the 2011-2013 pilot areas, average time spent searching for parking fell 43% and vehicle-miles/GHG emissions from circling fell 30% versus control neighbourhoods, per SFMTA's 2014 evaluation. A peer-reviewed study of the first two years estimated that the rate changes moved blocks toward the 60–80% occupancy target and cut cruising by about 50%, a result its authors called less certain. A second peer-reviewed study found that blocks where prices rose became less full but showed no discernible improvement in parking availability, and a third found that SFpark increased bus ridership and reduced traffic flow.

🎓 Lesson

Price steps this small work slowly: one study found each rate change individually small but cumulatively substantive after ten, and another warned that steering average occupancy into a target band need not make a free space easier to find. The pricing outlived its sensors because the meters already produced payment data that could estimate occupancy.

🚲 MobilitySmart parking

Sources

↗ SFMTA — Demand-Responsive Parking Pricing (authority)Current programme page: demand-responsive pricing adjusts meter and garage rates to match demand; the SFMTA Board adopted the citywide programme on 5 December 2017.
↗ SFMTA — SFpark pilot evaluation, 2014 (authority)Published 19 June 2014Results of the federally funded pilot, compared against designated control areas: search time down 5 minutes (43%), vehicle-miles and greenhouse gases from circling down 30%, average meter rates down 4%; pilot areas held more than 6,000 meters.
↗ SFMTA — Citywide meter rate adjustments (authority)Updated 13 July 2026Rates are set from meter-payment estimates of occupancy — up $0.25 above 80%, down $0.25 below 60% — and adjusted about every quarter; the most recent citywide change took effect on 13 July 2026, with quarterly data files from January 2018 onward.
↗ SFMTA — SFpark Pilot Program (project page)From 2011 to 2013 SFpark tested its system at 7,000 of the city's 28,800 metered spaces and 12,250 garage spaces; federal Urban Partnership funding paid 80% of the project.
↗ SFMTA — Board adopts citywide demand-responsive pricing (blog, December 2017)Published 5 December 2017The SFMTA Board approves demand-responsive pricing for the city's 28,000 on-street meters, with quarterly changes of 25 cents; the pilot method had run for six years at 7,000 meters.
Show 4 more sourcesShow fewer
↗ Demand-Responsive Pricing on the Cheap: Estimating Parking Occupancy with Meter Payment Data (Transportation Research Record, 2016)Published January 2016The in-ground sensors used for the pilot met the end of their useful lives and were deactivated; the agency built a sensor-independent model that estimates occupancy from meter payment data.
↗ Millard-Ball, Weinberger & Hampshire — Is the curb 80% full or 20% empty? (Transportation Research Part A, 2014; author preprint)Published March 2014Peer-reviewed evaluation of the first two years: rate changes helped move occupancy toward the 60–80% target and reduced cruising by about 50%, a result the authors call less certain; each rate change is individually small but cumulatively substantive.
↗ Chatman & Manville — Theory versus implementation in congestion-priced parking: an evaluation of SFpark (Research in Transportation Economics, 2014)Published June 2014Peer-reviewed study of more than 13,400 parked vehicles on priced and control blocks in 2011-2012: occupancy fell where prices rose, but parking availability showed no discernible improvement.
↗ Krishnamurthy & Ngo — The effects of smart-parking on transit and traffic: Evidence from SFpark (Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2020)Published January 2020Difference-in-differences study using the rollout of SFpark: the programme led to a significant increase in bus ridership and a reduction in traffic flow.

📅 How old is the evidence?

Two clocks, kept apart: when this entry’s sources were published, and what has happened to its record in the atlas. Documented span: since 2011. 6 of 9 sources carry a publication date, from March 2014 to January 2020.

When the sources were published

  1. UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies · researchMillard-Ball, Weinberger & Hampshire — Is the curb 80% full or 20% empty? (Transportation Research Part A, 2014; author preprint)
  2. IDEAS/RePEc · researchChatman & Manville — Theory versus implementation in congestion-priced parking: an evaluation of SFpark (Research in Transportation Economics, 2014)
  3. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) · operatorSFMTA — SFpark pilot evaluation, 2014 (authority)
  4. SAGE Publishing · researchDemand-Responsive Pricing on the Cheap: Estimating Parking Occupancy with Meter Payment Data (Transportation Research Record, 2016)
  5. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) · operatorSFMTA — Board adopts citywide demand-responsive pricing (blog, December 2017)
  6. Elsevier · researchKrishnamurthy & Ngo — The effects of smart-parking on transit and traffic: Evidence from SFpark (Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2020)

Every source, with links ↑

What happened to this record

  1. Entered the record
  2. Sources last read

Every revision, permanent →

Show your work What this page rests on and what it can’t tell you · all 14 claims with their sources · the forensic record

Evidence file · public beta 14 addressable claims, 9 source dossiers, one permanent baseline. The file is unreviewed — an AI-assisted structural migration, not a human or expert endorsement. Every revision keeps a permanent copy under revision history.

Inspect the claims, one by one — verbatim text, sources and caveats for all 14

The text below is copied verbatim from the published record. Each claim names the source dossiers that carry it; caveats stay attached to the claim they qualify.

Claim 1 clm-ec7c80a2cfec4e2e quantitative
San Francisco's SFpark pilot wired 7,000 meters with sensors in 2011
Published field
snippet · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this file
What the mapping says
SFMTA's project page says that from 2011 to 2013 SFpark tested its system at 7,000 of the city's 28,800 metered spaces; the 2017 Board release says the pricing method ran "for over six years at 7,000 meters" after the pilot implemented it in 2011.
Caveat
SFMTA's own counts differ: the project page counts 7,000 metered spaces, the 2014 evaluation release says the pilot areas held "more than 6,000 parking meters", and the 2017 release says 7,000 meters.

Sources carrying this claim

  1. SFMTA — SFpark Pilot Program (project page)
  2. SFMTA — Board adopts citywide demand-responsive pricing (blog, December 2017)
Claim 2 clm-6c5207cfde0a9922 descriptive
to test prices that rise and fall with demand
Published field
snippet · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this file
What the mapping says
The project page: "SFpark periodically adjusts meter and garage pricing up and down to match demand."
Caveat
No claim-specific caveat recorded

Sources carrying this claim

  1. SFMTA — SFpark Pilot Program (project page)
Claim 3 clm-10f58595475d9dc3 descriptive
The sensors reached the end of their useful lives and were switched off
Published field
snippet · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this file
What the mapping says
The paper's abstract: "San Francisco relied on wireless in-ground parking sensors to measure parking occupancy for the SFpark pilot, but those sensors met the end of their useful lives and were deactivated." It adds that parking sensors are "a nascent and costly technology".
Caveat
The paper reports the agency's own replacement model, so it speaks from inside the programme.

Sources carrying this claim

  1. Demand-Responsive Pricing on the Cheap: Estimating Parking Occupancy with Meter Payment Data (Transportation Research Record, 2016)
Claim 4 clm-9444e892b59b0aa0 descriptive
the city kept adjusting rates using meter-payment data instead
Published field
snippet · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this file
What the mapping says
The rate notice: "Using meter payment data to estimate parking occupancy, the SFMTA raises the rate by $0.25 on blocks where average occupancy is above 80%"; the paper describes the sensor-independent model behind it.
Caveat
No claim-specific caveat recorded

Sources carrying this claim

  1. SFMTA — Citywide meter rate adjustments (authority)
  2. Demand-Responsive Pricing on the Cheap: Estimating Parking Occupancy with Meter Payment Data (Transportation Research Record, 2016)
Claim 5 clm-f829c359355fbeb6 quantitative
citywide since 2018
Published field
snippet · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this file
What the mapping says
The SFMTA Board approved demand-responsive pricing for "the city's 28,000 on-street parking meters" on 5 December 2017; the citywide rate notice lists quarterly rate-change data files beginning in January 2018.
Caveat
The decision dates from December 2017; 2018 is the year of the first citywide rate-change file on SFMTA's page.

Sources carrying this claim

  1. SFMTA — Board adopts citywide demand-responsive pricing (blog, December 2017)
  2. SFMTA — Citywide meter rate adjustments (authority)
Claim 6 clm-96b51bf7e0eda1d8 quantitative
with quarterly rate changes still taking effect in July 2026
Published field
snippet · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this file
What the mapping says
The notice: "Rates are adjusted approximately every quarter" and "The most recent citywide demand-responsive parking meter rate changes took effect on July 13, 2026."
Caveat
No claim-specific caveat recorded

Sources carrying this claim

  1. SFMTA — Citywide meter rate adjustments (authority)
Claim 7 clm-0f5b9d192b125966 quantitative
In the 2011-2013 pilot areas, average time spent searching for parking fell 43%
Published field
impact · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this file
What the mapping says
The 2014 release lists for the pilot areas: "Average time spent searching for parking decreased by 5 minutes, or 43 percent"; the project page dates the test to 2011-2013.
Caveat
An evaluation run and published by the operator; the search-time figure comes from manual surveys.

Sources carrying this claim

  1. SFMTA — SFpark pilot evaluation, 2014 (authority)
  2. SFMTA — SFpark Pilot Program (project page)
Claim 8 clm-099822b8b2adb9ef quantitative
vehicle-miles/GHG emissions from circling fell 30% versus control neighbourhoods, per SFMTA's 2014 evaluation
Published field
impact · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this file
What the mapping says
The release says the evaluation "compares pilot areas against designated control areas (where no policy or technology changes were made)" and lists: "Vehicle miles travelled and greenhouse gas emissions from cars circling for parking decreased by 30 percent."
Caveat
The 30% is a modelled reduction for the pilot areas, reported by the operator.

Sources carrying this claim

  1. SFMTA — SFpark pilot evaluation, 2014 (authority)
Claim 9 clm-c2382795d902c9cb quantitative
estimated that the rate changes moved blocks toward the 60–80% occupancy target and cut cruising by about 50%, a result its authors called less certain
Published field
impact · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this file
What the mapping says
The conclusion: "we estimate that the program is slowly achieving its goal of moving occupancy into its target range of 60-80%. We also estimate that SFpark has reduced cruising for parking by about 50%, although these results are less certain."
Caveat
The same paper puts mean cruising in the pilot area at only 0.13 blocks, and a 2020 study by the same authors found cruising for parking in San Francisco to be small overall.

Sources carrying this claim

  1. Millard-Ball, Weinberger & Hampshire — Is the curb 80% full or 20% empty? (Transportation Research Part A, 2014; author preprint)
Claim 10 clm-5065f0b511cb0ebf descriptive
blocks where prices rose became less full but showed no discernible improvement in parking availability
Published field
impact · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this file
What the mapping says
The abstract: "when prices rose, the block-level occupancy of parking fell, suggesting that SFpark worked as intended. But blocks where prices rose showed no discernible improvement in parking availability".
Caveat
Based on supervised observations at three points in 2011 and 2012, early in the pilot.

Sources carrying this claim

  1. Chatman & Manville — Theory versus implementation in congestion-priced parking: an evaluation of SFpark (Research in Transportation Economics, 2014)
Claim 11 clm-6bf20ed06c537e48 descriptive
SFpark increased bus ridership and reduced traffic flow
Published field
impact · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this file
What the mapping says
The abstract: "Using a difference-in-difference strategy ... we find that SFpark led to a significant increase in bus ridership and a reduction in traffic flow."
Caveat
No claim-specific caveat recorded

Sources carrying this claim

  1. Krishnamurthy & Ngo — The effects of smart-parking on transit and traffic: Evidence from SFpark (Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2020)
Claim 12 clm-7e218886047c5138 descriptive
one study found each rate change individually small but cumulatively substantive after ten
Published field
lesson · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this file
What the mapping says
"The impacts of each rate change are individually small, but after the ten rate changes evaluated in this paper, the changes are shown to be cumulatively substantive."
Caveat
No claim-specific caveat recorded

Sources carrying this claim

  1. Millard-Ball, Weinberger & Hampshire — Is the curb 80% full or 20% empty? (Transportation Research Part A, 2014; author preprint)
Claim 13 clm-40ae9ebb6a60a03a descriptive
steering average occupancy into a target band need not make a free space easier to find
Published field
lesson · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this file
What the mapping says
"A price system designed to improve average occupancy may not improve parking availability, and thus may not reduce cruising."
Caveat
No claim-specific caveat recorded

Sources carrying this claim

  1. Chatman & Manville — Theory versus implementation in congestion-priced parking: an evaluation of SFpark (Research in Transportation Economics, 2014)
Claim 14 clm-9162621860725a13 descriptive
The pricing outlived its sensors because the meters already produced payment data that could estimate occupancy
Published field
lesson · verbatim
Mapping
mapped · no interpretation or interpolation added by this file
What the mapping says
The abstract: cities "are adopting new parking meters that make meter payment data widely available"; the agency's model "can reliably estimate occupancy to support demand-responsive pricing", which "allows San Francisco to continue its SFpark program".
Caveat
Not every driver pays the meter, so the model estimates rather than measures occupancy.

Sources carrying this claim

  1. Demand-Responsive Pricing on the Cheap: Estimating Parking Occupancy with Meter Payment Data (Transportation Research Record, 2016)
Forensic record — source dossiers, gaps, hashes and the exact revision this page renders

This layer records what is known about each source, what is still missing, and the exact snapshot this page is rendering. A missing date, archive or hash stays visible as missing.

unreviewed Revision 2026-10-14-baseline effective 2026-10-14 · created 2026-10-14

Awaiting operator and domain-expert review; publication of this revision implies neither.

sha256:e51b8311f7cf54f61b4b712a65548f298b8d18ec3634390a0fd2caf6d128c885
Revision history → Permanent version link → Machine-readable record → Evidence Constitution →
14
of 14 claims mapped
9
source dossiers
2
publication dates recorded
0
archives linked
0
exact locators
0
content captures hashed

Governance facts carried by the record

Operator
SFMTA
Actor types
utility
Funding model
public
Funding description
Not recorded
Cost
Not recorded
Ownership
Not recorded
Decision rights
Not recorded
Exit conditions
Not recorded

9 source dossiers

SFMTA — Demand-Responsive Parking Pricing (authority) sfmta.com · background

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-f9297c777693fcd4
Publisher
Name not classified · sfmta.com
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
Not recorded
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-10-14
Dossier created
2026-10-14
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

Current programme page: demand-responsive pricing adjusts meter and garage rates to match demand; the SFMTA Board adopted the citywide programme on 5 December 2017.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
Background source; no baseline claim points here
SFMTA — SFpark pilot evaluation, 2014 (authority) sfmta.com · 2 linked claims

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-11f506845b8463aa
Publisher
Name not classified · sfmta.com
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
2014-06-19
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-10-14
Dossier created
2026-10-14
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

Results of the federally funded pilot, compared against designated control areas: search time down 5 minutes (43%), vehicle-miles and greenhouse gases from circling down 30%, average meter rates down 4%; pilot areas held more than 6,000 meters.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
SFMTA — Citywide meter rate adjustments (authority) sfmta.com · 3 linked claims

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-b94b4a2f085d9b18
Publisher
Name not classified · sfmta.com
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
Not recorded
Updated
2026-07-13
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-10-14
Dossier created
2026-10-14
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

Rates are set from meter-payment estimates of occupancy — up $0.25 above 80%, down $0.25 below 60% — and adjusted about every quarter; the most recent citywide change took effect on 13 July 2026, with quarterly data files from January 2018 onward.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
SFMTA — SFpark Pilot Program (project page) sfmta.com · 3 linked claims

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-c6c963f67baf6451
Publisher
Name not classified · sfmta.com
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
Not recorded
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-10-14
Dossier created
2026-10-14
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

From 2011 to 2013 SFpark tested its system at 7,000 of the city's 28,800 metered spaces and 12,250 garage spaces; federal Urban Partnership funding paid 80% of the project.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
SFMTA — Board adopts citywide demand-responsive pricing (blog, December 2017) sfmta.com · 2 linked claims

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-b2ce82b2bb08fda3
Publisher
Name not classified · sfmta.com
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
2017-12-05
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-10-14
Dossier created
2026-10-14
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

The SFMTA Board approves demand-responsive pricing for the city's 28,000 on-street meters, with quarterly changes of 25 cents; the pilot method had run for six years at 7,000 meters.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
Demand-Responsive Pricing on the Cheap: Estimating Parking Occupancy with Meter Payment Data (Transportation Research Record, 2016) doi.org · 3 linked claims

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-e62f732efef643c1
Publisher
Name not classified · doi.org
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
Not recorded
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-10-14
Dossier created
2026-10-14
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

The in-ground sensors used for the pilot met the end of their useful lives and were deactivated; the agency built a sensor-independent model that estimates occupancy from meter payment data.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
Millard-Ball, Weinberger & Hampshire — Is the curb 80% full or 20% empty? (Transportation Research Part A, 2014; author preprint) millardball.its.ucla.edu · 2 linked claims

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-f8120524a66e9d57
Publisher
Name not classified · millardball.its.ucla.edu
Type / language
pdf · language not classified
Published
Not recorded
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-10-14
Dossier created
2026-10-14
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

Peer-reviewed evaluation of the first two years: rate changes helped move occupancy toward the 60–80% target and reduced cruising by about 50%, a result the authors call less certain; each rate change is individually small but cumulatively substantive.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
Chatman & Manville — Theory versus implementation in congestion-priced parking: an evaluation of SFpark (Research in Transportation Economics, 2014) ideas.repec.org · 2 linked claims

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-b0edb7a416350ac6
Publisher
Name not classified · ideas.repec.org
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
Not recorded
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-10-14
Dossier created
2026-10-14
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

Peer-reviewed study of more than 13,400 parked vehicles on priced and control blocks in 2011-2012: occupancy fell where prices rose, but parking availability showed no discernible improvement.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
Krishnamurthy & Ngo — The effects of smart-parking on transit and traffic: Evidence from SFpark (Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2020) doi.org · 1 linked claim

Open original source ↗

Stable source ID
src-d43eba290d0a7e4d
Publisher
Name not classified · doi.org
Type / language
web-page · language not classified
Published
Not recorded
Updated
Not recorded
Source last checked
No source-level check date
Record last verified
2026-10-14
Dossier created
2026-10-14
Retrieved copy
No local capture recorded
Archive
No archived copy linked
Content hash
No captured content hash
Locator
Open the recorded source note

Difference-in-differences study using the rollout of SFpark: the programme led to a significant increase in bus ridership and a reduction in traffic flow.

Descriptive only — not page/paragraph exact
Claims linked
Known limits of this file
  • Publisher names and source languages have not yet been classified; domains are recorded without guessing.
  • Existing source notes are descriptive locators, not page- or paragraph-exact citations.
  • A missing archive, publication date or content hash is shown as null rather than inferred.
  • The project-level evidence grade ranks the strongest source in the entry; it is not a truth score for every claim.

Continue exploring

Compare this project

🇪🇸 ApparkB Regulated Parking Payment & Prediction · Barcelona SFpark priced parking by sensors from 2011, later switching to payment data; ApparkB predicts space from payments alone, no sensors. 🇵🇱 e-kontrola: Warsaw's Plate-Scanning Parking Enforcement Cars · Warsaw Warsaw's camera cars enforce paid-zone compliance; SFpark instead prices parking by demand since 2011, no enforcement patrol needed. 🇪🇸 SmartSantander · Santander Santander's 2010-13 pilot sensored parking as one part of a bigger IoT testbed; SFpark used that era's sensors for one job: dynamic pricing.

The in-ground parking sensor, and what replaced it

Buried bay sensors were the emblem of the smart-city decade. Three of the cities that installed them have since taken them out, and the fourth never put any in — a rare case where the atlas can watch a technology lose.

ProjectSinceStatusOutcomeEvidenceRun byCostWhat the city relies on today
SFpark Demand-Responsive ParkingSan Francisco, 🇺🇸 2011 Live Succeeded Peer-reviewed Utility or public operator not public The pilot that made demand-responsive pricing famous switched off its sensors when they reached the end of their useful lives, and now sets kerb prices from payment data.
SmartPark — CBD In-Ground Parking Sensor NetworkWellington, 🇳🇿 2016 Completed Scaled back Official City government NZ$1.5m to install (2016) The council pulled the whole in-ground network after eight years and went back to simpler pay-by-plate meters.
Fastprk In-Ground Parking SensorsBarcelona, 🇪🇸 2011 Completed Scaled back Independent Private company not public The sensor city's own parking sensors scaled back; what drivers see today is built from what drivers pay, not from the ground.
Riyadh Parking: Priced Curbs & Camera PatrolsRiyadh, 🇸🇦 2024 Live Ongoing Official City government, Private company not public A later scheme skipped the ground entirely: priced bays, an app, and camera cars instead of buried sensors or wardens on foot.

Explore the wider context

🔑 Your Smart City Is Owned by Someone Else
📎 Cite this project

1001 Smart Cities (2026). “SFpark Demand-Responsive Parking” — San Francisco, United States. The Smart City Atlas. https://1001smartcities.org/projects/sf-sfpark/ (last verified 2026-10-14). Data: CC BY 4.0.

The underlying data is free to reuse with attribution — see the open data page.

🚩 Report an error · 🔔 Follow changes to this entry (RSS)

✉️ One source-checked project a week. No pitches, no vendors.

Inside: the Landmark of the Week, one Insight, the newly documented cities. One-click unsubscribe. About the newsletter · RSS