Slashdot Mirror
Inside a Mechanical Parking Garage
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."
Having some guy with a crappy car dripping oil down on your convertable.
If the power went out you'd be screwed.
Moo!
I think a spoofed magnetic card might be a valid way to attack this system, however the fact that all the access terminals are in very public places will deter most people from tampering with it (like ATMs in malls).
The question is: who's legally responsible when the computer driving this thing screws up and drops your car a couple storeys?
Of course, if everyone just used public transit, then public transit would be faster and we could put parks in place of parking lots.
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.
These things are as common as mud in cities like Taipei and Tokyo.
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
Only dropped cars a couple of times too. (much less than 0.01% error given how often it pushes n pulls cars...)
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.
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.
You ever think about taking an 80lb concert grand harp on a train or bus? No, I didn't think so. I know several professional harpists that would have that limitation. String bass would be tricky too.
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.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
The solution to congestion at rush hour is for all businesses to recognize that employees arriving at work at varying hours is good for society, and it makes the employees happier to be able to set their own schedule. Since people will show up at much more staggerred times rather than trying to show up for a specific 8am or 8:30am exactly start time, you won't get the 30 minute based congestion. People will need less time driving and more time enjoying their lives, making the society slightly more stress-free. Allowing flex time is good for society.
madra
cam wrote this
Okay, and for those of us that have to pay for housing, what do you suggest? People live in the suburbs because it's cheap housing. Go price some houses or apartments in a downtown area.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
As if it would be more convenient for us suburban types to walk a few miles (about 4 where I am) in the rain to get to a bus stop. And since there are only a handful of buses that come near me, I would have to forgo anything in my schedule that happens before 1100 am.
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.
Your calculations would be fine, except you ignore the costs of the car itself, repairs or depreciation, maintenance, insurance, etc. While, at 40mpg, your costs are probably lower than average, there's a reason that the IRS gives ~$0.30/mile as the actual costs of driving. It's because most Americans have just taken for granted that they have a car payment and insurance payment every month and don't even consider those costs when making these kinds of comparisons.
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
I've considered this in my own situation.
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.