Inside a Mechanical Parking Garage

Beware... by LostCluster · 2004-04-02 18:00 · Score: 4, Funny

Cars not picked up in time to avoid having racked up more charges for being parked than they're worth are automatically loaded into the attached crusher...

Old Technology by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-02 18:00 · Score: 4, Informative

This sort of technology has been widely used in Japan since the early 90s.

Re:Old Technology by swschrad · 2004-04-02 18:09 · Score: 2, Informative

they were in new orleans' downtown in the 80s.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Re:Old Technology by UniverseIsADoughnut · 2004-04-02 18:26 · Score: 2, Informative

I've seen these before in the auto industry, one company had a building with a couple of them so they could store several hundred cars indoors, but they didn't have to run them indoors (which was important for the application)

Jetsons? by ejaw5 · 2004-04-02 18:01 · Score: 4, Informative

It sure has been a long while...but IIRC when George Jetson arrived at work after dropping off Jane, Elroy and Astro his vehicle collapsed into a standard size briefcase which he took into the office.

--

$cat /dev/random > Sig

Not new news by gnuman99 · 2004-04-02 18:01 · Score: 5, Informative

I've heard of these types of parking lots being operational in places in Japan and Hong Kong for a number of years now.

Of course, if everyone just used public transit, then public transit would be faster and we could put parks in place of parking lots. But I guess it is more convenient to sit twice as long in a grid lock...

Re:Not new news by irokitt · 2004-04-02 18:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

When I lived downtown, I rode the bus back and forth everywhere. But times change, fares go up, schedules get changed for more "efficiency", and the end result is that riding the bus is no longer an attractive option for me.

--
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
Re:Not new news by prockcore · 2004-04-02 18:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:Not new news by Durin_Deathless · 2004-04-02 18:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

There are some people for whom public transit isn't an option. 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. Oh, and what about chefs carrying their knives? What do they do when they can't carry their tools of the trade around because of antiterrorist paranoia? The Boy Scouts, heading on a camping trip, each needing around 60lb of gear? There are plenty of people for whom public transit will never be an option at all. Don't try and shove it down their throats. I don't deny that for many people, public transit is a viable solution. For some, however, it is impractical or substantially more expensive than owning and using a car.

--
You should use AdiumX on your Mac.
Re:Not new news by Durin_Deathless · 2004-04-02 18:28 · Score: 2, Funny

You should see the face on the look of people at car dealerships when harpists go car shopping...

--
You should use AdiumX on your Mac.
Re:Not new news by johnw · 2004-04-02 19:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

You *average* 60 mph on a 15 mile journey door to door?! Allowing for the necessary slow parts at each end that means you must be doing well over 100 mph in the middle.
Re:Not new news by coastwalker · 2004-04-02 19:15 · Score: 2, Informative

http://www.trevipark.co.uk/after-intro.html

Seems we have plenty of these automated garages in Europe also, I used to commute on the train past the one in Stockholm every day. There is a windows media player clip on the site which shows the vehicle driven into the system and returned rotated ready to drive away. Plenty of pictures also. Says the retrival time is 50 seconds.

One cool aspect of these storage silos is that you could plant one under an existing car park and put trees and grass in the place of the ground level car park.

--
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Re:Not new news by linhux · 2004-04-02 19:20 · Score: 2, Informative

I have 90 miles to my office. It takes me about 75 minutes to get there, with public transport. That includes one switch from train to bus.
Re:Not new news by Ironica · 2004-04-02 19:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

As if it would be more convenient for us suburban types to walk a few miles...When I lived downtown, I rode the bus back and forth everywhere.

You chose to live in a place without accessible transit. Sure, you probably had your reasons... of course, if our public policy didn't encourage people to buy as much house as they can possibly afford, and we didn't make it so much cheaper to develop in the outskirts than in the city, your choice might have been different. But it's still the choice you made.

Where do you work? Do you commute to a place where you're competing with tens of thousands of other people for road space? If so, then moving out to the suburbs just made everything that tiny bit worse for all of us. If you work at home or somewhere near where you live, then it makes a bit more sense.

--
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Re:Not new news by Ironica · 2004-04-02 19:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?
Re:Not new news by black+mariah · 2004-04-02 19:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

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'.
Re:Not new news by Feanturi · 2004-04-02 21:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:Not new news by cmacb · 2004-04-02 21:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

"You chose to live in a place without accessible transit. Sure, you probably had your reasons..."

No, I think you decided what you had to say before you read his post though: *They moved the route!*

Never the less. I have lived here near DC and have used both public transit and driven to work. About an equal amount of each.

I was inclined to use mass transit when my hours were both fixed, and normal. If your hours are unpredictable, as many are these days, you can get screwed. Parking lots that feed the metro system here in DC fill up between 8AM and 9AM. Shortly after that the busses go into a reduced schedule, then stop running completely in many places except for the morning and afternoon rush. Makes perfect sense doesn't it? Using mass transit with even a slightly shifted schedule here is almost impossible. The system runs at full capacity for a couple hours every morning and afternoon and then dries up almost completely, simply because there is no way to get to it.

But that doesn't stop people from saying data-free things like "if more people would just use mass transit, things would be so much better".

Most of these systems run at a loss. They almost all were built on a model that said they could run profitably if ridership were "X" and now in most cases ridership is "2X" or more.

Thats not to mention recent finding that there is little or no preparedness for terrorism in these systems. Guess what? They "forgot" to deal with that issue, and now they will need more money for that. They also "forgot" what they did with millions of dollars in parking fees for the system, and yes, they will need more money(!) to automate their money tracking system better so they don't lose so much money in the future. Maybe.

These systems become huge bureaucratic sinkholes, with nobody really claiming responsibility for anything that happens. In the end, taxpayers anywhere in the vicinity of these systems end up footing the bill for all the waste, and politicians who get chauffeured to work utter platitudes about increasing ridership to solve all problems.

Is the answer for everyone to get a low gas mileage SUV and drive 75 miles to work every day? No. But there are lots of alternatives. Fuel efficient cars. Car pooling. An for the vast majority of information/office workers, simply STAY HOME. Our problems with this are way more cultural than technological. Very few people who work for the federal government can work at home. They have to show up. To see, and be seen by all the other people who show up. Never mind what they accomplish, or fail to accomplish. They were there for roll call, now where is the paycheck?

Many people who live only a few hours from these urban eye-sores drive economy cars, work a few miles away at the hardware store or coffee shop. They don't breath polluted air. They don't drink lead contaminated water (that DC city officials "forgot" to tell anyone about).

The solution to many of these problems is to stop cramming people into high rise buildings where they live and bussing them to high rise building where they work. That model fails to produce quality of life wherever it has been tried worldwide.
Re:Not new news by flappinbooger · 2004-04-02 21:52 · Score: 2, Funny

That reminds me -

Why do we park on a driveway but drive on a parkway?

--
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
Re:Not new news by weave · 2004-04-03 00:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

The solution to many of these problems is to stop cramming people into high rise buildings where they live and bussing them to high rise building where they work. That model fails to produce quality of life wherever it has been tried worldwide.

That certainly fits the description of Manhattan and quite a few people disagree with your sentiment based on what the market will bear for housing on the island. Density can also bring some advantages as well as disadvantages. People prefer different things.
For example, I tend to like the Phoenix area. There are millions of people there and hence you get the services, stores, etc, that cater to that kind of density, but the place is spread out very very thin. Designing a transit systme there is very difficult because, except for a somewhat traditional downtown area, most people just criss-cross across the valley to go to work.
My wife, on the other hand, prefers large cities because everything is close together and more vibriant. She also points out that she lived in Los Angeles area when she was younger, that was like Phoenix is now a few decades ago, and that all of that new construction just slowly turns to shit and you eventually get mile after mile of rundown crap that all looks the same. She expects the Phoenix valley will turn into LA eventually.
Re:Not new news by frdmfghtr · 2004-04-03 00:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

I have lived here near DC and have used both public transit and driven to work. About an equal amount of each.

I wish I could say the same...

My daily commute from Virginia to DC is about 9 miles one-way across the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. Anybody who has lived in the DC/VA/MD area knows what a PITA that route can be. I also drive a hybrid, so I get great gas mileage and super-ultra-low emissions. I'm not just saying that; the car is rated as a SULEV. So when I sit in rush-hour traffic, I'm generally not burning any gas.

One day I rode the bus/train to work because (a) My car was somewhere else and (b) I wanted to know how long it would take in case I had to do it repeatedly.

My findings?

When I leave the house at 6:30am, I get to work around 6:50. At 45 MPG and 90 miles/week, that's two gallons of gas. At $1.75/gallon, that's $3.50 work of fuel I burn in my commute every week. Per mile, my commute costs me 3.8 cents per mile in fuel.

If, OTOH, I take the metro, I have to leave the house at 6:30 via the free shuttle from my place to the closest metro station, take the train into DC, transfer to another train, ride to another station, transfer to a bus, and ride the bus to the stop outside the office. That trip runs me about $2.75 ONE WAY and takes two hours. Total cost: $22.50 per week in metro fares. Now, taking into account that the run also covers roughly 3x the distance, that comes to about 8.3 cents per mile.

So, riding mass transit costs me about twice what it costs me to drive myself on a per-mile basis, or over SIX TIMES what in costs me in absolute terms; but that's of course made up for by the fact that the commute takes six times as long.

Fortunately I don't pay for parking, so I do have a big advantage there. If I paid for parking, then the story changes dramatically.

In short--I'll continue to drive myself to work in the morning.

Not to say that there aren't other times I'll take the metro to other places because of the convenience of not having to pay for parking or even finding a spot; I don't drive into downtown DC unless I have to, because traffic is a g-- d--- nightmare.

--
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Re:Not new news by silas_moeckel · 2004-04-03 01:14 · Score: 2, Funny

Yea another one. Yet another the suburbs are bad live liek a sardine int he city and ride public transportation next to the bum with lice (over egagerating but you get the point) How about this we make it more atractive for business to move out into the burbs so people in the country can find good work. Throw some high speed trains making few stops fromt he city to these little complexes so the city folk can work someplace nice.

Persoanly I'm a work at my own office near my house/home at client site consultant. There will never be a posibility of living near all my clients.

Currently I'm in NYC and have come to this conclusion the city should phase out city busses they wreck havoc in the streets I have been nearly run over by them a few times a months for the last six months as there drivers seem to drive on the I'm bigger than you and they cant fire me pricaple so they just rush out in front of vehicals forcing them to brake hard. Secondly phasing out all on street parking would help a ton by opeing up 2 lines on every road. Mass transit makes more sence if it's not competing with cars. As it seems to be your point that cars are not a good thing mass transit needs to become consitantly faster and more convenient that cars. High speed trains with an agrigate speed and frequency faster that the average non rush hour car speed would be needed. Lets look at me for an example.

I have a 2-2.5 hour commute from CT to NYC. The first 30 miles I go by car as the train takes 2x as long and only runs ever few hours makng the missed train penalty significant. I then go the rest of the way about 90 minutes on a trains going less than 65 mph including stops. This is faster during rush hour only. Off peak I can make the same trip in a car in little over an hour at 80mph average in my car.

Lets look at possible solutions using high speed trains:

High levels of automation can reduce the expensive and error prone human factors.
A signle high speed train could use a detach/ reattach system to avoid slowing down. A single/set of cars would be at the station before the train arrives it would gather all the passengers, accelerate and meet up with the long distance train and join it at the head of the train. Departing passangers would move to the rear car(s) and they would detatch and decelerate to a station stop. Keeping the average speed for all passangers near maximum. Some statistics would allow the traint o know what stations it can skip if there is nobody destined for it. A train like this running on 10-15 minute spacing and say 150 MPH would be faster assuming 30 minutes time wasted between each end on cummutes that are about an hour. This number goes down significantly as the person needs to waste less time getting to and travaling from the station. Will it ever happen probably not, people are to dumb on average to figure out what car they need to move to and to scared of a train going throguh there back yard at 150+MPH. I think the average commute is like 35 minutes I dont see mass transit comming close to this.

BTW I agree peope shouldent overextend themselves in buying a house but I also dont think people should be forced to live in the city some people like that life many others hate it. I work on the if you can see your neighbor they are too close rule.

--
No sir I dont like it.
Re:Not new news by LetterJ · 2004-04-03 01:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

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
Re:Not new news by Katharine · 2004-04-03 02:13 · Score: 2, Informative

Ironica wrote: You chose to live in a place without accessible transit.

And what if you are married and both of you have jobs, one in the city, and one in the 'burbs? Depending on the geography, it may not be possible to live somewhere where both can get to work by public transit.
Re:Not new news by Draknor · 2004-04-03 02:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Also, by rasafras · 2004-04-02 18:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

Your car is much harder to steal. Two layers of security, not just one - but it is a cool hacking challenge. Any takers?

--
webpage

Re:Also, by mrseigen · 2004-04-02 18:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?

Can you leave your dog in it? by MillionthMonkey · 2004-04-02 18:04 · Score: 3, Funny

This sounds great for dog owners. Not only can you park and leave your dog in the shady underground, no animal rights people will be able to get to your windshield to leave a flier explaining what a bastard you are.

Re:Can you leave your dog in it? by U.I.D+754625 · 2004-04-02 19:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hide in the trunk, then after the car is loaded in, fold the seat down, climb out and break into the other cars, steal some things you like, load them into your car and have your friend recall the vehicle. Sounds fairly easy to pull off.

--

//Blessed are they that run around in circles, for they shall be known as wheels.

Pictures and Details by nacturation · 2004-04-02 18:05 · Score: 5, Informative

Available here.

--
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.

I can picture it now by dicepackage · 2004-04-02 18:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

Having some guy with a crappy car dripping oil down on your convertable.

Well... by Moocowsia · 2004-04-02 18:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

If the power went out you'd be screwed.

--
Moo!

Re:Well... by uspsguy · 2004-04-02 20:40 · Score: 2, Funny

By the time yo walk down the dark stairs of your 50 story office tower, they will probably have fixed the power anyway.

--
Profanity - The sign of a small mind trying to express itself.

Links by BMIComp · 2004-04-02 18:13 · Score: 2, Informative

DC Press release
Space saver company

Re:Please note the date... by LostCluster · 2004-04-02 18:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

Nope... it appears the company really exists.

Slate would have had to have gone a long way to fake a website this detailed and then not link to it in the story.

car dispenser? by Doc+Ruby · 2004-04-02 18:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

How about something like ZipCar, with hourly-rental cars distributed throughout the city/county/interstate, near mass-transit junctions? These automated dispensers would be replenished with a just-in-time supply chain. Now economies of fleet scale, including propane/CNG/electric power, can be available to the aggregated community, amortizing the capital costs across the maximum use.

Every new building in crowded centers should build 150% of their parking capacity requirement into their architecture, and get all parked cars off our congested streets. When the spaces are filled with fuelcell vehicles, the building can autonegotiate with the vehicle owners for competitive power pricing in either direction across their charge plugs. All this possibility makes the Jetsons look like some 1960s cartoon.

--

--
make install -not war

Re:car dispenser? by Ironica · 2004-04-02 19:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Every new building in crowded centers should build 150% of their parking capacity requirement into their architecture, and get all parked cars off our congested streets.

The problem is, all kinds of research has shown that parking (and highways, roads, all private transportation infrastructure) operates on an "if you build it, they will come" principle. If you build 150% of "capacity," one of two things will happen: either a third of your parking spaces will be empty even during Christmas Eve shopping frenzy (because you really did build 50% over capacity needs), or you will have 50% more cars there than before (because the place is in such high demand that parking is a limiting factor).

Unless, of course, you *charge* for parking. Properly priced parking can manage demand very effectively. Old Pasadena is a good example of this. Expensive parking meters that operate until midnight keep street spaces at high turnover for people stopping in quick here or there, while slightly lower-priced municipal garages take the longer-term cars off the street and leave people free to wander around. And they do... the place is *packed* with pedestrians on Friday and Saturday nights, and many other times during the week too. Now that you can take the Metro Gold Line there, it's even better.

Sorry I didn't provide any links, but if you're really interested, look into the work of Donald Shoup at UCLA. He's the parking god.

--
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?

Re:zerg by LostCluster · 2004-04-02 18:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Thanks for the typical snark Americanisms by Durindana · 2004-04-02 18:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Like a robotic vacuum cleaner or a remote-control lawn mower, the automated parking garage is an object that adds almost nothing to the original.

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 by donutello · 2004-04-02 18:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Moron.
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.

--
Mmmm.. Donuts
Re:Thanks for the typical snark Americanisms by be-fan · 2004-04-02 19:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

I dunno about the other bits, but I can vouch for the sprawl one. Have you ever been to Atlanta? The city, which was designed to be driver-friendly, is ONE GIANT PARKING LOT. Seriously, you have have WalMarts with football-field sized parking slots out front. And back. And on the sides. Now, because land is so cheap, giant parking lots are probably more cost-effective, but it does make the city look like a post-apocalyptic nightmare.

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.

--
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Re:Thanks for the typical snark Americanisms by Ironica · 2004-04-02 19:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

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".

Hm... UCLA spent $38,000 per space to dig up the IM field and build a parking garage under it (then put the field back). Granted, that's somewhat extreme, but the typical cost used to calculate the price of building a below-grade parking garage in an urban environment these days is $30,000 per space, excluding land costs. For comparison, a surface lot is about $7,000/space and a parking structure is around $15,000.

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.

Pollution: the Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by people *looking for a cheap parking space* is astonishing. I'm too lazy to dig up my notes right now, but a study done in Westwood Village (home to UCLA) found that the average person circled for 3 minutes looking for street parking there (because it's significantly cheaper than structure parking, which generally isn't full). The math came out to some staggering total like 90,000 Annual VMT just from those people circling.

So, having structured parking that you just drive in and leave your car could significantly reduce VMT if it got people to stop circling. You also have to price alternatives correctly though.

Sprawl: When you have to build 2 parking spaces per apartment, it drives up development costs very quickly. It also drives down your FAR (Floor Area Ratio). You end up building fewer, bigger apartments, because then you have to build less parking. In either event, though, you have to buy a lot of land.

Now, let's see... if I need a whole lot of land, will I get it cheaper in the central city, or on the outskirts? Where will I have fewer complaints from the neighbors about noise from construction (because there are fewer neighbors anyway)? Where am I more likely to avoid toxic cleanup issues, especially if I don't have to dig underground to build parking? Gee, I wonder...

The best solution, of course, is to reduce the demand for parking (by pricing driving and parking appropriately and making alternatives more attractive), and reduce the acreage needs of development that way. But, if you can build a municipal parking structure in a more compact place, and then let developer in-lieu fees pay for it (they pay a fee per space that they don't have to provide, since the parking is already there), you make developing in urbanized areas more attractive again.

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.

Well, sure. But no one's trying to build these in Enid, Oklahoma. On the other hand, Enid isn't trying to figure out where they're going to put the 50% population increase they're expecting in the next two decades, either. Southern California has been promised (by the gurus at the Census Bureau, I think... who usually have underestimated us in the past) that the equivalent of "two Chicagos" will be added to the region's population by 2025. And they'll probably all bring a gigantic SUV with them, unless we do something...

--
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Re:Thanks for the typical snark Americanisms by Xzzy · 2004-04-02 19:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

That's more a product of evolution than planning, I'd think. Cities in europe got their start when everyone travelled by foot. Cities in America caught the tailend of that, and as the population spread westward transportation got easier, culminating with the auto.

Drive through any old US city like NYC or Chicago, and the highways will be crammed into two lanes with a confusing braid of onramps and offramps. Regions like Seattle or the SF bay on the west coast have massive 8 lane highways and a number of tributaries (expressways, etc) feeding cars into local streets.

That part of the world is the newest, so it benefits (though I suppose the use of "benefits" is a potential debate topic ;) the most from modern transportation.
Re:Thanks for the typical snark Americanisms by be-fan · 2004-04-02 20:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, Atlanta has the advantage of having been burned down during the civil war, and really only built up in the last century or so, so its more like Seattle (beautiful city, btw) than New York. However, the fact remains that these "driver friendly" cities are very unasthetic. The roads are enormous, walking anywhere is downright dangerous, and there is concrete as far as the eye can see. I much prefer the more compact European cities, because unlike the compact American cities (cough, DC), they actually do public transportation right.

--
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...

Robotic Parking by AndroidCat · 2004-04-02 18:31 · Score: 2, Informative

Robotic Parking in Clearwater tried to make a go of it, but results seem less than promised (Jetsons again) Of course, since it's a Scientologist-run company, they'll make it go right just like Elron said it should...

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.

Cars are big problems in the first place by modder · 2004-04-02 18:45 · Score: 2, Offtopic

I'll get modded down for this, but here goes:

I've never owned a car in my life. I can't drive due to a medical condition. I've managed to get around using public transportation here in the US. Other countries have better systems of public transport.

Cars are a very dangerous form of transportation. We need better ways of addressing these issues. From the article, we have developed ridiculously complicated ways of dealing with part of the problem. Storing the cars. Other parts of the problem include traffic. (When will automated devices begin to lift cars onto seperate freeways or freeway lanes, in order to help traffic congestion?) Then there's the oil thing. But no one wants to use electric cars. I guess "hybrids" are a tiny baby step in the right direction.

When you have to drive 90 minutes from an area you can afford, into an area where you are employed, there is a serious problem and the fancy automobile is not the answer. (apparently public transit isn't the answer either the way it currently works. Some people in california drive 3 hours to get to work.)

So we are able to store the beasts in a way in which they could not be stored before, and the motivation was lack of space... Something is wrong here.

Re:Please note the date... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-02 18:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hey, when I lived in Holland, there was a robot store. Just a window with stuff in it... you stick some money into it and an arm comes out and picks up your what you want and drops it in a hole on the side. Open 24h of course.

But hey, no big deal, just a big vending machine, had those since the 50's.

Other automated parking garages by Animats · 2004-04-02 18:59 · Score: 4, Informative

Paris has a few automated parking garages. Because Paris is built on easily-tunneled limestone, it's a good place for underground garages.

Trevipark, a British firm, has a nice, rather simple technology for modest size parking garages, with several installations in Italy. Trevipark is a silo with a turntable/elevator at the center. This technology is best suited for underground storage. It's elegant in that there's very little visible on the surface.

Parksysteme, in Germany, has been building such systems for forty years. But they haven't had many installations.

An automated garage operated in Manhattan in the 1960s.

None of these systems has reached ten installations.

Re:Other automated parking garages by Animats · 2004-04-03 06:44 · Score: 2, Informative

Nussbaum claims 70 installations, but mostly for new-car sales operations, not parking.
The basic problem is designing and building something that can survive a hostile environment and indifferent maintenance. Trevipark has a good system for that. The basic lift is a single big hydraulic cylinder, a reliable, rugged technology used for heavy freight elevators everywhere. On top of that is a turntable, also a reliable technology. On top of the turntable is a horizontal pallet mover, probably the least reliable mechanical component. But it's only one self-contained unit, so it can be overdesigned.
The large 2D rectangular systems involve too many cables, wheels, and tracks spread over a large space. High-maintenance.

Look at the previous post! by InfiniteWisdom · 2004-04-02 19:03 · Score: 2, Funny

Thats where the crusher comes in!

hilarious! by linhux · 2004-04-02 19:09 · Score: 2, Informative

You know its a German company when they have a Flash presentation such as this one. Fantastic, really.

Necessity is the mother of all invention. by mfh · 2004-04-02 19:12 · Score: 4, Informative

Many people have commented on the fact that Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong have been implementing these systems for many years now.

The obvious observation here is that Japan and Taiwan are island countries with limited real estate and space and spatial efficiency is at a much higher premium there than it is here. Hong Kong has a similar predicament; it is landlocked by the rest of China on three sides and an ocean on the other, and has actively secured borders. (i.e., they can't just annex land or start building strip malls and boulevards like most cities in the US and Europe)

The only American analog I can think of off the top of my head is Manhattan, NYC, but I suspect that instead of being luddites, their motives against implementing such systems are economic in nature as they are the exception to the general American rule in terms of availability of real estate to build parking garages. Being an island nation definitely has influence on cultural and technological development.

Anyway, I suspect that entire graduate theses can be written on such a topic.

--
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.

vertical lift systems, power failure problems by SuperBanana · 2004-04-02 19:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

NYC has had these for years; they're 3-4 spaces high, you drive into the space, the guy pushes a button, the car goes up 2-3 levels in the unit. Another car drives up, goes up 1-2. Etc until it's stacked full.

Only problem? Well, I remember a photo of a enraged car owner screaming at a parking attendant on the day of the massive NYC blackout; they're useless in a power outage; you're not getting your car out, and that's that.

"Oh, they must have had backup generators", you say. Ever been to NYC? Everything is done as cheaply as possible. They'd sell your car after you parked it if they thought they could get away with it. They're certainly not going to keep a backup generator around just in case there's a power outage- they're just going to tell you to walk home.

--
Please help metamoderate.

Re:inside? by Ironica · 2004-04-02 19:29 · Score: 2, Informative

It doesn't look like it's very accessible - if you forget your phone or a book or whatever, I wonder if can you walk down underground and get it instead of waiting for the car to come back up. Looks like you'd just get sliced by the machinery. I thought there might be a pathway around the outer walls so you could still get to your car.

Part of the reason it works is because they don't have to put enough space between the cars for people to get in and out the doors. So, no, even if you could walk up and say hi to your car when it's down there, you couldn't get anything out of it.

--
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?

Tons of these in Tokyo/Japan by ctar · 2004-04-02 20:53 · Score: 2, Informative

Here in Tokyo, there must be thouands of these...Most of them go up - not down - but regardless the idea is the same. Many public parking garages work like this - 10 story buildings that probably only fit 3 or 4 cars across. And, almost all of them are protected by Halon or Carbon Dioxide gas-based fire extinguishing systems....I guess figuring that if a fire broke out inside one of these, it would quickly become a pretty big mess...

There's a small un-lit sign above the entrance to these structures. If the system goes off, the sign lights up saying 'Halon gas released - do not enter' or something to that effect in Japanese...

Re:Not with MY Mercedes ! by Ian+Peon · 2004-04-02 21:11 · Score: 2, Informative

Yeah I looked at the site. Did you look at the SpaceSaver site?? Note this pic shows the nice bit of metal underneath every car.

So your precious fsck'ing Mercedes would be fine.

...and get a grip. It's only a friggin car. You probably didn't even build it, you just paid too much for it and think it means something. Go rent Fight Club again. Go!

--
Never never never smoke crack before geometry class!

Been doing this for a long time by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-02 21:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

Here at Saturn, we store our body panels in a similar (nearly identical) system.

The "paint buck" has its Smarteye tag read and the buck gets removed from the carrier and transported down one of several aisles by a rolling lift which transverses either in one direction horizontally or vertically. You get the idea.

The ASRS (Automatic Storage & Retrieval System) makes note of where it got put and then it's off to get the next one.

The empty paint carrier leaves and goes off to get another buck.

When it comes time to load another job on to the line (to be sent to the General Assembly building where the panels will get put onto the spaceframe), the procedure gets repeated in reverse. The lift then finds the panel set of the desired color, gets it, puts it on the carriers that go to GA and then sends it on its way.

BTW, The weight of the paint buck is comparable to that of a car (probably around 3000 pounds). A-yup, they are heavy. It's an "all hands on deck" event when one of these falls off of its carrier over in our building.

Most of the time things work flawlessly, however...

The ASRS has been known to overtravel in the past and wipe out the sprinkler heads.
Has been known to put the buck in the wrong hole.
Has been known to retrieve the wrong paint buck.
Has been known to not retrieve anything.
Has been known to dump the paint bucks off from about 60 feet up (everybody out?)
Has been known to have the lift fail.
Has been known to get partially stuck, forcing Maintenance folks to perform death-defying feats to get the damm things unstuck.

So, no riding in the car when it's getting stored or retrieved.
Beware of fire and flood.
And eventually (probably soon) things will begin to wear out and the system will inevitably need to be serviced while it's getting your car.

I'm sure that it will be only a matter of time before somebody's Rolls gets upended. Read the fine print on the parking spot agreement.

John

... rest of the posting here by Lev_Arris · 2004-04-02 22:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

Arg, hit Enter for a new line and Submit was somehow selected... anyway:

The solution for the problem above: The goods Storage tower. Basically it operates like a giant tape robot (or those parking systems) only it stores the goods you ordered. The process is this:

- Order from an online store, indicate 'the tower' as the delivery address (requires cooperation from the online store of course)
- Store packs your stuff, drives up to the tower, puts it into the standard boxes there and taps in your code.
- The tower takes a picture of the contents of your box and notifies you that your goods have arrived (via the web, SMS, ...).
- You drive up to the tower at any time that is convenient to you (it's up and running 24/7), punch in your code, the bot fetches your box and lets you take out your goods.

They even remembered to put it specially cooled slots so it is also suitable for grocery deliveries etc... and if ever one of those packages isn't retrieved within a certain timeframe (was it 4 days? Can't remember) the tower notifes somebody from the company to come and clean out that compartiment to avoid the food rotting in there.

I want one of those towers right accross the street NOW! ;)

Tower 24 was the name of the company by Lev_Arris · 2004-04-02 22:25 · Score: 2, Informative

Just remembered the name of the company, here's their website (in German though):
http://www.tower24.de

The operator of the garage pays... by brianvan · 2004-04-03 09:09 · Score: 2, Informative

or more appropriately, their insurance company pays.

Caddy takes plunge at high-tech garage

The other high tech parking garage that they alluded to in the subject article is located in Hoboken, NJ, a stone's throw from NYC. In this particular case, a Cadillac DeVille was pushed off its pallet and smashed into oblivion due to the trunk popping open during retrieval. The trunk apparently clipped the machinery or something like that. Heh. The Hoboken municipal garage, by the way, is very similar to what they mention here but has a far higher capacity. It looks like a row of upscale apartments. It went far over budget and was finished quite late. It too resulted in a cost of about $25,000 a parking space. However, Hoboken is absolutely atrocious when it comes to parking... even more so than many parts of Manhattan. Simply no parking during the day, no parking at night. If you want a garage space for a weekend night, that's a cool $20 right there. Because these garages save a lot of space... and space is at quite a premium around this area... they do make a lot of sense. No, these garages don't make sense in the middle of Iowa or Idaho. Sort of like it doesn't make sense to buy a pickup truck to commute from Brooklyn to Manhattan every day.

Slashdot Mirror

Inside a Mechanical Parking Garage

60 of 295 comments (clear)