Noted: UPS is the No. 1 parking violator in San Francisco

The package delivery firm gets an average of one parking ticket every 45 minutes. Last year, UPS paid $673,334 in fines for 11,788 tickets. A FedEx driver says of parking cops: "I know they're doing their job. But I'm doing my job, too. If we had to drive around looking for parking, we wouldn't get our job done." (San Francisco Chronicle)

Comments

[vksjk]

UPS guys work their asses off. I can't fathom some sadistic parking cop doling out a ticket to them.
Lots of parking cops get their jollies when giving out tickets, they live for it.

[pnwgal]

My father retired from UPS after 35 years. vksjk is right-the UPS guys run all day and they don't have time to drive around looking for a parking spot. Their routes are timed to the second and there isn't alot of wiggle room.

Cops could give them a break.

aren't they just in and out for the most part? How much of a problem could they be causing in 2 mins.

[pdg]

Anon: you're correct but then those poor parking cops would have no fun and the city would get no extra $$ - Sadly, UPS can't win that one.

Remember, the Parking cop has got A BOOK of tickets and he (she's) not affraid to use them!

[V]

Agreed with all of you...the only thing that irks me is that all that money, well, if it's being spent on tickets, then it has to come from somewhere. Which means you're paying for it every time you use the services of those companies. And I've been stuck behind double-parked delivery trucks in DC, it's no picnic when the street is too narrow to get around them. I can completely understand why they're being ticketed, but I can also completely understand the lack of spaces for them to park legally. The only thing that gets me is that the cost...and if it's in the millions for NYC, then it's probably in the billions overall...is most likely being passed on to us.

Sucks!!!!!

[Soo]

Can UPS switch to air drops in protest? I think that'd be pretty damn funny.

[Bill]

I disagree here.

UPS FedEx and its ilk are required to obey the same laws as everyone else.

If they have such a problem, let them hire a drivers assistant. One can stay with the truck and drive it around the block if neccessary while the other delivers the package.

[V]

Hey, that's a good idea! An assistant driver has got to be cheaper than those tickets! And it would save us the hassle of double parked monstrous trucks!

I also love the air drop idea-I'm imagining one of those huge helicopters capable of carrying a bus dropping packages into people's chimneys...like osme sort of weird cross between (was it Swordfish with the helicopter?) and Santa Claus.

[Joe]

I'd agree with Bill -- I used to work in downtown DC, and a double-parked FedEx or UPS truck would completely screw up rush hour traffic as 2 lanes had to merge to 1. (or sometimes, they'd just park in areas that were no parking from 4pm-6pm, creating the same issues).

I'm all for ticketing them -- 10 minutes saved for them can result in 5-10 min lost for hundreds of people

[d_m_arnold]

As much as I hate those double-parked brown trucks, I hate not getting my packages on time even more, so I guess I come down sorta kinda on the UPS side.

However, I'll never forget watching a UPS guy standing on the back of his truck tossing packages onto the pavement like so much cord wood. Air drops indeed.

[SwarthyTroll]

It really isn't that much money for them, and it's factored into the cost of the service. When you factor in how many trucks they have throughout the city one ticket for the COMPANY every 45 minutes isn't a big deal.

[Phranqlin]

Aren't loading zones supposed to be for short-term delivery parking? Most big buildings have them.

[Yo]

Good point, Swarthy. 1 every 45 minutes, is probably less than 1 a month per driver.
Another part of the problem is how businesses now work - with just-in-time delivery and all, and most businesses not set up with a proper method of receiving.
There should be spaces set intermittently for deliveries (load zones anyone?).

[Joe]

Phranqlin -- in some cities (I'm mostly familiar with Washington DC), the loading docks are in alleys, and it's not readily apparent from an address how to get to them, as the entrance might be on a different street within the block. They don't lead directly to the main entrance, which can make them very confusing for someone who's not familar with that particular building.

And, like any other parking space -- they might be full.

And, even worse, the alley might be blocked (nothing's quite as much fun as trying to back up down a narrow, twisting alley ... and they've got a schedule they're required to keep).

From the delivery folk's point of view, I could see that getting a ticket (and inconveniencing the other drivers on the roads) is more profitable than using the loading docks.

The drivers don't have to pay the fines so why should they care where they park? They could get a ticket every 5 mins and they still would not care about it.

San Francisco is exceptionally bad when it comes to parking. I visited a friend there and received 2 parking tickets during my one-week stay. It's completely ridiculous and complicated to keep track of the street cleaning schedule...

and then there's Sunday where you are allowed to park anywhere. There's cars on the center divider, and anywhere else you can fit one...

I wouldn't be surprised if there were no loading zone parking spaces at all.

[ProfDon]

I repeat my suggestion from the story about the HOV lanes...close cities to all but delivery, mass transit, and maintenance traffic and a whole raft of problems would be solved: from crowding to pollution to energy wastes to 'road rage'.

[Village Idiot]

"It's a business decision,'' company president Pat McMillan said. "Is it cheaper to pay the ticket, or is it cheaper to pay the guys working for me to spend time looking for a legal parking space?"

That is the crux of regulatory compliance in any context. It's why the UPS trucks block traffic sometimes, and why some factories go ahead and pollute our air in voilation of laws. It's cheaper to pay the fine than to comply. These situations always develop when there is an insoluble conflict between regulations and practical reality.

This case is just a form of taxation. The companies are paying a "parking tax" since no matter how many tickets they get, no "repeat offender" penalty kicks in, apparently. After breaking the same law 1000 times, most offenders are slapped with harsher consequences, to compel them to comply, but not here.

This is one of the unintended consequences of poor urban design, IMO. People living in higher densities are going to need a higher density of goods and services, and that means a higher density of whatever it is that delivers goods and services. If the infrastructure design does not take existing and future growth into account then these types of bottlenecks are inevitable, and why the conflict is insoluble.

In very dense areas, why do these trucks need to be so damn big? Smaller vehicles (like, say, regular vans or even minivans) would fit in much better and increase efficiency of traffic flow, but admittedly would decrease efficiency for the company. However, this is how it's done in Europe and they seem to be doing alright.

I wonder how many milllions of gallons of gasoline have been wasted by motorists idling behind a delivery truck while they wait for it to move? Passing the inefficiency on to you, whether you use UPS or not...

Q: "In very dense areas, why do these trucks need to be so damn big?"

A: "People living in higher densities are going to need a higher density of goods and services"

[Village Idiot]

More goods and services needed doesn't automatically mean bigger trucks. Why not more efficient transfer? And I mean "efficient" in a broad sense... maximum efficiency for everyone, not just the delivery companies, and traffic flow is part of that. Compromise. This is where the conflict becomes insoluble, since smaller trucks means more of them, but at least they would flow with traffic instead of block it, and be easier for motorists to get around while making a delivery.

Europe has even higher population densities than most places in the US, yet most delivery trucks in those areas are regular sized vans (regular meaning in scale with the area, Euro vehicles are generally smaller than American ones, from coupes up to trucks, which is a sensible response to higher density).

The larger truck could park outside the high-density area (the "mothership") and the smaller vans could take it from there. Might hurt the bottom line of the delivery company, but imposing their business model on the rest of us isn't exactly fair, either. They should try to fit in with the flow of the city, not stop it all up like a cork in a bottleneck.

I think what they need is bigger trucks. The larger the vehicle, the smaller the footprint on the environment. You don't want lots of little trucks, when one large when can do the job.