Inside a Mechanical Parking Garage 295
poisedleft writes "Slate has this article about a mechanical parking garage in DC. 'Despite the undeniable Jetsons cachet of the robo-garage, the Summit Grand Parc went automatic only because it had to. A 60-foot-by-106-foot lot behind the building, the only land available for a conventional garage, couldn't hold more than 14 spaces.' One potential problem for suffering city dwellers: long lines at rush hour."
I can picture it now (Score:5, Insightful)
Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Also, (Score:4, Insightful)
The question is: who's legally responsible when the computer driving this thing screws up and drops your car a couple storeys?
Re:Not new news (Score:3, Insightful)
How would public transit be faster for 90% of the US? I take the freeway to work, I drive 15 miles each way, it takes me 15 minutes.. that's an average of 60 mph door-to-door.
If I took the bus or some rail system, it would take me more than hour because, unlike mass transit, I don't have to stop every mile to pick up and drop off passengers.
Re:Common as mud... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, that's the first thing that comes to mind when I think of Tokyo. The vast expanses of mud, everywhere, as far as the eye can see. yea
Re:zerg (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd consider that kind of error ratio perfectly acceptable, compared to the number of human fender-benders that happen in a typical parking garage setup. Sure, sucks to be the owner of the dropped car... but insurance will pay for that.
Thanks for the typical snark Americanisms (Score:5, Insightful)
Moron. Just because America is "not lacking in parking spaces" doesn't mean an auto-carpark isn't a massive improvement over the traditional, enormously wasteful (of space and money) parking lot. Sprawl and pollution, for starters, would be significantly less than the major, major insurmountable problems they are now in virtually all American cities if we could do away with our dependence on plentiful free parking.
Re:Thanks for the typical snark Americanisms (Score:4, Insightful)
You would think that someone who goes around declaring others as "morons" would at least display some rudimentary amount of intelligence themselves.
Just because America is "not lacking in parking spaces" doesn't mean an auto-carpark isn't a massive improvement over the traditional, enormously wasteful (of space and money) parking lot.
In most American cities, the auto-park is a solution looking for a problem. The machinery itself is fairly complex to build and maintain. The average cost of a parking spot in the auto-park is $25,000. In most American cities, the average cost of a parking spot is a lot less than that. Now you tell me which is the "waste of money".
Sprawl and pollution, for starters, would be significantly less than the major, major insurmountable problems they are now in virtually all American cities if we could do away with our dependence on plentiful free parking.
Huhh?? What does expensive stack parking have to do with pollution? I hope you're not suggesting that the extra 100 yards a car has to drive in your average parking lot is a measurable source of pollution. Ditto for sprawl.
Stack parking does make sense in places where real estate is very expensive - Manhattan, for example. However, the value proposition is just not there for the majority of places. Once the value proposition gets there, there will be more of these around.
Re:Not new news (Score:3, Insightful)
Your examples, by and large, would have issues using a standard car as well. Transporting a harp or string bass or 60 lbs of camping equipment is difficult no matter how you do it. But this is a small fraction of the population. Boy Scouts going on camping trips and professional musicians do not contribute hugely to rush-hour traffic.
Re:Thanks for the typical snark Americanisms (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO, the Europeans built their cities right. Paris is half the land area of Atlanta, and utterly undrivable. However, that doesn't mean much, because there are close to 400 metro stations in the cities, plus another 150 RER stations for the suburbs. Washington DC is almost as compact (and nearly as undrivable), but its subway pales in comparison.
The solution to congestion (Score:1, Insightful)
madra
cam wrote this
Re:Not new news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thanks for the typical snark Americanisms (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not new news (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the assumption was that if everyone was using public transit, it would be faster, not only because there would be less traffic. It would also be because ridership would be so high they could afford more buses, tighter routes, and shorter waits. More shelters too for your rainy wait.
One of the main reasons so many bus systems are crappy or deemed inadequate by potential users is because there just aren't enough users to support to level of service we'd like to see. Remember, somebody has to pay all those drivers every day, and fuel and maintain all of those buses. That's why your rates go up and the schedules get messed with. If everyone was taking the bus everywhere, you would likely see dramatic improvements in service, and rates could possibly relax as well.
Re:Not new news (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not new news (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is, unless you are willing to forgo the car completely, you can't factor in the price of the car, repairs, depreciation, etc (any more than the amount of miles used for commuting).
If I was willing to sell my vehicle and use mass transit exclusively, then yes, it would be much cheaper to pay $40 for a monthly pass then the $400-$500 I pay for auto loan, insurance, and vehicle maintenance. But I use my vehicle for more than just commuting - I drive to visit friends & family on the weekends, for example.
Since I'm going to have a vehicle anyway, the marginal cost of using it to commute is far cheaper than taking mass transit.
And when calculating costs, you have to factor in the value of your time, too - in most cases, taking mass transit takes longer (as in the grandparent's post). So you need to take that into the cost considerations, as well.
The point is, mass transit is expensive if you own a vehicle anyway. That's not to say people shouldn't use it - I still occassionally use it for the reduced environmental effects and less wear & tear on my own personal vehicle. I just realize that those reasons cost me an extra $0.50 (or whatever) a mile.