Parking Reform
There’s been some talk in the blogosphere lately about DC’s building height limit and the potential benefits for lifting it. That’s important, but at the moment there’s no more important issue for the future of urbanism in DC than the Office of Planning’s proposal to change the parking requirements for new development in the city. At the moment, the main reason large swathes of DC are very nice places to live is that most of the city’s buildings were built before the current rules were put in place. Another important contributing factor is that it’s possible to get the requirements waived. But the existing requirements, as applied to small buildings, destroy the urban character of the city while, as applied to large buildings, unduly hamper redevelopment of large underutilized parcels.
Today comes the news that reform got a big boost as the Zoning Commission offered largely favorable remarks on the proposal to mostly scrap the parking minimum requirements.
This issue, it should be said, really hits hard in rowhousey areas that became afflicted by blight in decades past and now are making a comeback. Some of that comeback simply manifests itself in existing structures being renovated. And so far so good. But part of the legacy of blight is a lot of “missing” buildings, vacant lots, or underutilized open-air parking areas. As neighborhoods like that become more desirable, what one wants to see is new infill development filling those gaps. That adds vitality to the neighborhoods, makes neighborhood retail more viable, and helps keep the price of housing from spiraling out of control. But current parking requirements typically make it illegal to build a new building that’s just like the old buildings in the neighborhood — instead you need to build much more parking, in a way that’s often just impractical on a small lot. This becomes a major burden on the neighborhood as a whole, with vacant spaces simultaneously degrading quality of life and artificially pushing up housing costs.
But beyond that specific case, mandatory minimums for parking are just generally undesirable. They promote economically inefficient use of space which brings down everyone’s material standard of living. They involving richer-than-average car owners getting, in effective, subsidies from poorer-than-average non-owners, which is stupid. They promote excessive levels of traffic which is annoying for people who drive. And they fail to internalize the full costs of car ownership, which encourages higher-than-optimal levels of driving, which is bad for public health and the environment. Most of all, though incumbent residents naturally worry about the potentially deleterious impact on their existing parking arrangements, this can be resolved through “performance parking” programs. What can’t be resolved is that fact that with existing minimums in place, new development risks destroying the city rather than providing it with new vitality as it ought to.
48 Responses to “Parking Reform”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 17th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
But beyond that specific case, mandatory minimums for parking are just generally undesirable. They promote economically inefficient use of space which brings down everyone’s material standard of living. They involving richer-than-average car owners getting, in effective, subsidies from poorer-than-average non-owners, which is stupid. They promote excessive levels of traffic which is annoying for people who drive. And they fail to internalize the full costs of car ownership, which encourages higher-than-optimal levels of driving, which is bad for public health and the environment.
Transit subsidies are just generally undesirable. They promote economically inefficient use of transportation, which brings down everyone’s standard of living. They involve richer-than-average rail commuters getting, in effect, subsidies from poorer-than-average taxpayers, which is stupid. They promote excessive use of public transportation, and they fail to internalize the full costs of public transportation.
October 17th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
In other news, it looks like Nate at 538 was right and, well, our friend Petey was wrong. Shocker.
October 17th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Ooh! Can anyone play this game?
“Mixner’s comments are just generally undesirable. They promote economically inefficient use of automobiles, which brings down everyone’s standard of living. They involve richer-than-average car owners getting, in effect, subsidies from poorer-than-average taxpayers, which is stupid. They promote excessive use of public right-of-way, and they fail to internalize the full costs of private transportation.”
It must be true, because it’s so similar to the original comment.
October 17th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
This is why people with generally hate city living. Getting around with small children and all of their gear is impossible. All of my friends who lived in Manhattan left as soon as they had kids. This includes Europeans and native New Yorkers who presummably are not as walking-phobic as the rest of us. Taking the subway with a stroller or wrestling a car seat into a cab is just no fun. One friend made it through that phase but then left when her son turned 4 and was bouncing off the walls of their tiny apartment. Obviously there are people who raise their kids in the city. Matt apparently grew up there. But most people vote with their feet and leave.
The affirmative case for parking I imagine would be that parking is a transportation public good, just like roads and rails, and deserves to be protected so we can all get around.
October 17th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
They involving richer-than-average car owners getting, in effective, subsidies from poorer-than-average non-owners, which is stupid.
But if you build new infill housing, isn’t it likely to be filled by richer-than-average people, whether they own cars or not? The poorer-than-average are going to be pushed out no matter what gets built. In fact, you could argue that the pressure on them will be lower if there is no new housing, because the old housing will be so crappy that richer-than-average people won’t live in it, and the neighborhood won’t be nice enough to justify replacing the old crappy housing with new housing.
Not saying you shouldn’t build infill housing and/or change the parking requirements, I’m just saying you should be careful about using the welfare of the poor to bolster your argument, unless you think their interests are really going to be served by new development in the District.
Also, people without cars may well be poorer-than-average on the whole, but people with cars are probably not richer-than-average to any significant degree. Car ownership is not by any means a good indicator of wealth.
October 17th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
I’d be curious to know what Matt thinks about affordable housing laws. You know, those restrictions that say X% of new units in a development need to be “affordable” so that working people have a place to live? Doesn’t this have the same objectionable character in terms of promoting an inefficient use of space? It also drives up the cost of the rest of the units for those people not fortunate enough to get the subsidized housing.
All zoning restrictions involve market distortions. They’re only justification is that they internalize some externality. But the values people put on those externalities vary. Childless, urban professionals do not value parking or the ability to commute from the suburbs, so these are public goods Matt thinks we need less of. I’d like to hear Matt share the criteria he uses to judge why some things are worthy of a subsidy and others aren’t.
October 17th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
BP: “In fact, you could argue that the pressure on them will be lower if there is no new housing, because the old housing will be so crappy that richer-than-average people won’t live in it, and the neighborhood won’t be nice enough to justify replacing the old crappy housing with new housing.”
Mixner makes this argument often: (paraphrasing) “Since public transit raises property values, it hurts the poor because they can no longer afford the newly valuable properties.” His problem is the same as yours: your argument justifies deliberately discouraging the improvement of poor neighborhoods.
October 17th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
The most likely long-term effect of making it harder and more expensive to park in DC is to accelerate the exodus of jobs, shoppers and residents to the suburbs and to newer cities more hospitable to car travel. DC will increasingly become a monoculture of childless, carless yuppies and yuppie-oriented infrastructure. Which I think is what Matthew and his brethren really want, notwithstanding their disingenuous pleas for “diverse” “mixed-use” neighborhoods. Families, immigrants, the poor and the elderly will continue to flee to more car-oriented areas where housing is cheaper and getting around is easier.
October 17th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
That’s quite a large assumption. You are assuming that new housing developments = gentrification. You are assuming that increasing the supply of housing will spur new demand. And you are assuming that neighboring low income residents have no ownership in that neighborhood (IE not owners of houses or condos).
October 17th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Arguements without evidence. I love it.
Rather, the most likely long term effect is an increase in population and increase in property values, making the city richer and the schools better, resulting in more families choosing to put down roots and lower crime rates.
October 17th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Mixner makes this argument often: (paraphrasing) “Since public transit raises property values, it hurts the poor because they can no longer afford the newly valuable properties.” His problem is the same as yours: your argument justifies deliberately discouraging the improvement of poor neighborhoods.
Incomprehensible. If “improvement of poor neighborhoods” is supposed to mean improving transit in those neighborhoods, and if improving transit in a neighboorhood raises housing values in that neighborhood (as transit proponents claim, calling this effect a “benefit”), it will make housing less affordable and drive poor households out of the neighborhood.
October 17th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Rather, the most likely long term effect is an increase in population and increase in property values, making the city richer and the schools better, resulting in more families choosing to put down roots and lower crime rates.
Arguments without evidence. I love it.
October 17th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
D.C. is not real America anyway. We should use buses to transport people to all the small pockets where the pro-America part of the country exists. The most likely long erm effect is an increase in pro-American sentiment, meth addiction, and morbidly obese people.
October 17th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Less affordable housing does not necessarily drive out the poor. Increased housing costs can be offset by reduced transportation costs, resulting in lower overall cost of living. Your mistake is confusing cost of living with housing costs. Related, true, but not equivalent.
October 17th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Mixner: “Incomprehensible. … it will make housing less affordable and drive poor households out of the neighborhood.”
Masterful job missing the point. The problem with your argument isn’t that it’s not true (a point I don’t concede), but that it’s beside the point. The exact same argument can be made against, for example, reducing crime in poor neighborhoods: reduce crime, and you’ll indirectly raise property values, thereby forcing poor people out of their homes, and thus we should not reduce crime in poor neighborhoods. Or adding fire departments, improving public schools, beautification, urban renewal, reducing homelessness; all of these are things, under your own argument, we should do nothing about because they raise property values.
October 17th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
“Jer,”
The problem with your argument isn’t that it’s not true (a point I don’t concede),
Then you need to describe what you think is wrong with it. Are you claiming that improving transit does not increase property values? Are you claiming that higher property values do not increase the cost of housing? Are you claiming that poor people are somehow magically immune to an increase in housing costs? Or what?
The exact same argument can be made against, for example, reducing crime in poor neighborhoods: reduce crime, and you’ll indirectly raise property values, thereby forcing poor people out of their homes, and thus we should not reduce crime in poor neighborhoods.
You are, as always, hopelessly confused. I didn’t make that argument.
October 17th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Arguments without evidence: I love ‘em!
October 17th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Families, immigrants, the poor and the elderly will continue to flee to more car-oriented areas where housing is cheaper and getting around is easier.
Cite, please.
October 17th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Mixner, he’s saying that “better transit increases property values and thus housing costs” is a bad argument because it applies to anything that would improve the neighborhood. Of course you didn’t make the argument that lowering crime is bad because it will raise property values — but what Jer is saying is, that’s the logic of the point you did make. It’s called an analogy.
October 17th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Less affordable housing does not necessarily drive out the poor.
No, it doesn’t “necessarily” drive out the poor, but it will tend to drive out the poor if it causes housing values to increase, as transit proponents claim.
Increased housing costs can be offset by reduced transportation costs, resulting in lower overall cost of living.
I’m not interested in what “can be” true under made-up assumptions. What are the actual, real-world effects of improving transit in a neighborhood on the cost of living in that neighborhood, taking into account housing costs, transportation costs and any other costs affected by the transit improvement?
October 17th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Mixner, he’s saying that “better transit increases property values and thus housing costs” is a bad argument because it applies to anything that would improve the neighborhood.
“Better transit increases property values” is not an argument, it’s an assertion. And even if it were an argument, it wouldn’t be a bad one simply because other kinds of neighborhood improvement would also raise property values.
If you don’t care what effect improving transit has on housing costs for the poor, fine. But at least say so.
October 17th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Arguments without evidence: I love ‘em!
October 17th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
The devil as always is in the details and some of these parking regulations Matt cites could be ridiculous and counter-productive. Nevertheless: if you want people to move back into cities yoiu MUST make room for their cars too, or they won’t do it. I ride my bike to work, but I do have a car, as does my partner, and no way are going to get rid of them. When we rented a rehabed Baltimore rowhouse in a genrifying neighborhood (which still needs a good deal more gentry in it) one of the big selling points was the fact that this house, unlike many of its kind, has a garage at the rear of the property which exits out onto the street behind us.
October 17th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Mixner,
Is it true that rail users are richer than average? I kind of doubt it, at least if you correct for the fact that city dwellers tend to me somewhat richer (in absolute, cost-adjusted) terms than rural people. If you ride one of the Boston subway lines within the city limits, you will see a lot of poor and working-class people taking the subway to school or work. (Obviously further out into the suburbs you start getting more wealthy people). Mr. Yglesias isn’t typical of the D.C. subway-commuter crowd, I would imagine.
JonF,
That’s all well and good, but if the U.S. economy heads into a second Great Depression, as looks increasingly likely, then economic conditions may _force_ you to get rid of one of your cars, or both of them. Not saying it’s good or bad, just that it looks likely.
October 17th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Is it true that rail users are richer than average?
Rail commuters, yes. They are typically upper-middle income or wealthy professionals who live in the suburbs and take commuter rail lines to their well-paid jobs in the city. Vast numbers of highly-paid workers commute into New York by rail every day.
I kind of doubt it, at least if you correct for the fact that city dwellers tend to me somewhat richer (in absolute, cost-adjusted) terms than rural people.
Huh? Yes, city dwellers tend to be richer than rural people. That’s part of the reason why transit subsidies are unjust. Especially federal subsidies that involve taking money from poorer rural folk to subsidize rail tickets for richer city folk who don’t even live in the same state.
Speaking of New York, the financial crisis is likely to hit that city really hard. It’s allowed itself to become far too dependent on the financial services industry. Now that that party’s ending, New York is going to lose lots of jobs and tax revenue. Not just well-paid financial industry jobs, but lots of low-level service industry jobs that were supported by all that Wall Street wealth. New York has long been an exception to the national trend of decentralization and urban flight, but it may not be able to hold out much longer.
October 17th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Mixner,
Don’t be silly. Inner city kids who take the Orange Line to school are not ‘rich’. And the higher cost of living in urban areas means that you can’t make a rural-urban comparison without correcting for that.
The American car culture is simply not feasible in a world of dwindling fossil fuel reserves, and your attempts to defend it are simply wrong and irresponsible.
October 18th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Don’t be silly. Inner city kids who take the Orange Line to school are not ‘rich’.
You’re the one who’s being silly. Inner city kids who take the Orange Line to school are obviously not commuters.
And the higher cost of living in urban areas means that you can’t make a rural-urban comparison without correcting for that.
Urban area residents tend to be wealthier than rural area residents even after “correcting” for the cost of living. Why should a low-income family in Texas or Arizona pay taxes to subsidize affluent rail commuters in New York or Chicago?
The American car culture is simply not feasible in a world of dwindling fossil fuel reserves,
Yes, that must be why cars have become the overwhelmingly dominant form of transportation in America (and Europe too) even as those fossil fuel reserves have been dwindling ever since we pumped the first gallon of oil out of the ground. Cars are gradually transitioning to alternative sources of energy, just like the rest of our industrial economy.
October 18th, 2008 at 5:11 am
Although this is a point I have made before, better wireless technology has made possible much more effective car-sharing services, and effective car-sharing services make it possible for people in reasonably dense areas to have the use of cars on demand with much fewer cars per person, provided the local public transportation is such that they don’t need their cars for commuting and other mass demand transportation scenarios (e.g., sporting events). And that means as car-sharing proliferates there will be less need for parking per person (again provided an area is generally dense enough and there is adequate public transportation for mass demand scenarios). As a side benefit, the economics of car-sharing also leads to quicker adoption of more energy efficient and greener cars, and conversely technologies to that effect make car-sharing services more economic.
Incidentally, all this has been acknowledged and incorporated into the parking reform process in DC. For example, at the linked post you will see the Commission is supporting the proposal to require large garages to offer free spots to car-sharing services. And again, I think it is worth emphasizing that this is ultimately a technology-driven change (mostly on the wireless side, although again energy efficiency and green technologies help too).
October 18th, 2008 at 6:36 am
Re: but if the U.S. economy heads into a second Great Depression, as looks increasingly likely, then economic conditions may _force_ you to get rid of one of your cars, or both of them.
That strikes me as absurd as saying that economic conditions will force us to get rid of the house itself and live under a bridge. In fact when people do become homeless they often keep their car and sometimes even live in it!
But I don’t see anything that extreme on the horizon, not for me personally or for the country as a whole. And on the whole car vs transit thing I’m squarely in teh middle. Unlike Mixner, who think everyone lives in an exurban McMansion or wants to, I see a serious role for transit. And unlike Matt I suspect people will be driving cars (albeit with very different technology behind them) when I am breathing my last in another forty years. This is not an either/or choice. It’s both/and.
October 18th, 2008 at 11:43 am
What Matthew never mentions is that the Dictrict of Columiba was puts caps on the number of parking spaces that a property owner can have. That is why parking at places like Washingotn Hospital Center is such a nightmare. AS the hospital grows there are not enough parking places the middle class workers or the sick patients (who are not willing to ride Metro or bike to the Hospital).
The same goes for universities in the District. That is why they a hard time finding janitors and maintenance people.
What ever is saved in energy for yuppies to live in build up urban areas is lost when delivery trucks have to drive in from Fredricksburg and blue collar tradesmen drive in from Winchester because white, blue collar tradesmen cannot find a hospitible place anywhere near northwest DC.
October 18th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I said:
But if you build new infill housing, isn’t it likely to be filled by richer-than-average people, whether they own cars or not? The poorer-than-average are going to be pushed out no matter what gets built.
Then Benny Lava said:
That’s quite a large assumption. You are assuming that new housing developments = gentrification.
I was responding to Matt Yglesias’ original post. An extended quote from Matt:
This issue, it should be said, really hits hard in rowhousey areas that became afflicted by blight in decades past and now are making a comeback. Some of that comeback simply manifests itself in existing structures being renovated. And so far so good. But part of the legacy of blight is a lot of “missing” buildings, vacant lots, or underutilized open-air parking areas. As neighborhoods like that become more desirable, what one wants to see is new infill development filling those gaps.
This sounds like gentrification, does it not? This sounds like the original residents leaving and new, richer, residents moving in, does it not? Matt again:
But beyond that specific case, mandatory minimums for parking are just generally undesirable. …They [involve] richer-than-average car owners getting…subsidies from poorer-than-average non-owners, which is stupid.
When you’re already talking about gentrification of a residential area with an attitude of general approval, I think bringing up the welfare of the original inhabitants as justification for a specific policy change is pretty much missing the point, unless you think that your policy change is going to make it less likely that they’re going to leave in the first place.
Now, maybe this is what Matt had in mind. I could imagine that, even in the gentrifying neighborhood context, limiting the amount of parking available could cut the demand by gentrifiers for housing to the point that the original inhabitants wouldn’t be forced to leave. Also, limiting the amount of parking will increase the supply of housing, and that might also permit some original inhabitants to stay. Matt wasn’t very explicit on either of these points.
Speaking of demand for housing, here’s Benny Lava again:
You are assuming that increasing the supply of housing will spur new demand.
No, I’m assuming that there’s enough existing demand to cause the existing housing to be refurbished and new housing to be built. This is the same context that Matt was originally using. It may or may not be true in a given situation.
If there’s less demand than that, then there will be less pressure on the original inhabitants to leave, but there will also be a lower likelihood of infill construction of any kind, which makes the infill vs. parking discussion irrelevant.
I (along with Matt) do assume that demand will in fact increase as an area “improves”. Again, if it doesn’t, then the new construction stops and the question of what kind of development is best ceases to matter.
And you are assuming that neighboring low income residents have no ownership in that neighborhood (IE not owners of houses or condos).
That’s a reasonable point. Owners are going to be in a better position than renters. Even so, the way some of them are going to cash in their newly valuable properly is to leave.
October 18th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
The point is that removing a minimum parking requirement on private property removes a regulatory barrier. It does not, however, enact a regulatory barrier that parking cannot be provided. If a developer wants to include parking - they can.
And removing a parking requirement doesn’t mean a family cannot have a car. On the contrary, for instance, a household of 4 could have one car, be able to get around easily in a place like DC - for groceries, carting the kids around, taking trips, or one family member using it for commuting. In fact, if even every household in the District had one car, that would be 277,000 cars — less than 50% of the total population.
October 18th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Mixner: “You’re the one who’s being silly. Inner city kids who take the Orange Line to school are obviously not commuters.”
Mixner Lemma: When Mixner says the word “obviously”, he’s pulling facts from thin air.
October 18th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I don’t know why you assume that original residents leave. Matt never mentions people leaving. He says “renovation” of existing structure and new “infill” in the “gaps”. I think you are assuming gentrification because that is how you want to frame your argument. Without that assumption, everything else you write falls apart. And there is no evidence that this argument should be framed that way.
October 18th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Again the assertions without evidence. I love it. Evidence that Texans are paying for the L or Metra?
October 18th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
benny
The percentage of DC that is white is increase. However, the percentage of DC public schools that is white, has not decrease.
If you are going to parrot the line “where’s the evidence” would you please describe what evidence to convince you that eliminating parking would cause gentrification.
October 18th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
DTM,
Although this is a point I have made before, better wireless technology has made possible much more effective car-sharing services, and effective car-sharing services make it possible for people in reasonably dense areas to have the use of cars on demand with much fewer cars per person, provided the local public transportation is such that they don’t need their cars for commuting and other mass demand transportation scenarios (e.g., sporting events). And that means as car-sharing proliferates there will be less need for parking per person (again provided an area is generally dense enough and there is adequate public transportation for mass demand scenarios). As a side benefit, the economics of car-sharing also leads to quicker adoption of more energy efficient and greener cars, and conversely technologies to that effect make car-sharing services more economic.
As communication and automation technology continues to improve, car-sharing services will evolve into an automated taxi system, which will greatly reduce the need for parking and replace most or all conventional fixed-route, fixed-schedule, large-vehicle mass transit. No one’s going to take a bus or a train when they have access to fast, cheap, on-demand, point-to-point car travel without the hassles of parking, which is what autonomous cars will provide.
October 18th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
> You’re the one who’s being silly. Inner city kids
> who take the Orange Line to school are obviously not
> commuters.
Huh? They ride the train twice/day, more or less during rush hour. Fits the definition of “commuter” to a T.
Cranky
October 18th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Even people in the car-sharing business admit there is one thing they can’t really do, which is supply most of the transportation services for commuting and other mass demand scenarios (actually, there is another thing they admit they can’t do, which is serve non-drivers–see also below).
The basic problem is quite simple: the essential reason why car-sharing is so much more efficient than ordinary car ownership is that many cars are idle most of the day, which causes waste in terms of things like depreciation and garaging. So you can avoid a lot of that waste through a system where the cars are idle a lot less, and that works to the extent people are using their cars at different times.
So, for example, shopping for bulky items is a common example of a transportation need often filled by cars that are otherwise idle much of the time. And as long as the people using a car-sharing service aren’t all trying to shop at once, car-sharing services can efficiently serve that sort of need with far fewer cars, and hence much less waste in terms of depreciation and garaging.
But this model breaks down when you get to something like commuting. That is because now you have most of the people needing the cars during the same concentrated periods on a regular basis (morning and evening commute times). Hence, you lose the ability to serve this particular sort of transportation need with far fewer cars, and indeed would necessarily have many of the cars sitting idle for much of the time (non-commuting periods).
Hence, people in the car-sharing business will happily explain that their model works best in places where lots of people can commute by public transportation, since that allows car-sharing services to focus on doing what they do well. Of course this isn’t a strict requirement–you can, for example, have viable scenarios for car-sharing services where the relevant households do not eliminate all cars, but instead just reduce the number of cars they own thanks to the car-sharing service.
Nonetheless, the big picture for car-sharing is that it is actually a complementary good with many forms of public transportation, not a substitute (it is complementary due to a threshhold effect–if you have to own a car anyway for commuting, you are likely to get less benefit from a car-sharing service). The major exception is public transportation designed to serve the occasional needs (shopping and such) of people who could drive, but who can’t afford a car: that is one area in which car-sharing services might compete with public transportation. But again, car-sharing is actually complementary, not competitive, with public transportation designed to serve commuters (and of course doesn’t compete with public transportation designed to serve those who couldn’t drive).
October 18th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Nonetheless, the big picture for car-sharing is that it is actually a complementary good with many forms of public transportation, not a substitute.
At present, car-sharing is not very competitive with public transportation because it requires the sharer to reserve the car ahead of time and travel to and from the pickup and dropoff location. It’s also still quite expensive. It’s not convenient, it’s not cheap, it’s not on-demand and it’s typically available only in dense areas where driving is difficult and parking is scarce and/or expensive. So its appeal is very limited.
But this will gradually change as automation improves, ultimately transforming car-sharing into a robotic taxi system providing cheap, on-demand, point-to-point car travel without any driving or parking hassles. You’ll call for a taxi from your cellphone/Super-iPod. It’ll arrive at your current location minutes or seconds later (it’ll know where you are via GPS or some other locating technology), take you to your destination and then move on to its next customer or to park until it gets another call. At that point, buses and trains will be dead. No one will bother with them when they can take an automated taxi instead.
But it won’t take full automation for car-sharing to take customers away from transit. Incremental improvements in automation will increase the responsiveness and decrease the cost and inconvenience of car-sharing services to make them more and more competitive with transit. A likely intermediate step between today’s car-sharing services and a fully automated taxi system is the self-delivering car (”Whistlecar”) described by Brad Templeton is his excellent series of essays on robotic cars.
March 1st, 2009 at 6:36 pm
cialis
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:41 am
Great site. Good info
March 12th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:28 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
tramadol
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:19 am
Incredible site!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:14 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:09 am
Thanks for the review! viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Hi. O, it is excellent to have a giant’s strength; but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant.
I am from Algeria and also now am reading in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Book cheap airline tickets and hotels to your favorite travel destinations.”
With best wishes :-(, Alexandria.