Wireless available parking space finder being installed

[Jack May]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/business/12newpark.html?ref=technology

"This fall, San Francisco will test 6,000 of its 24,000 metered parking
spaces in the nation's most ambitious trial of a wireless sensor network
that will announce which of the spaces are free at any moment."

"Drivers will be alerted to empty parking places either by displays on
street signs, or by looking at maps on screens of their smartphones. They
may even be able to pay for parking by cellphone, and add to the parking
meter from their phones without returning to the car."

"About a dozen major cities are in discussions with technology companies to
deploy so-called smart parking systems, though San Francisco is ahead in its
efforts."

"Transportation Alternatives, a public transit advocacy group, reported that
28 percent to 45 percent of traffic on some streets in New York City is
generated by people circling the blocks. The study also said that drivers
searching for metered parking in just a 15-block area of Columbus Avenue on
Manhattan's Upper West Side drove 366,000 miles a year."

"San Francisco's mayor, said that better parking systems were part of a
broader approach to managing congestion without imposing restrictive tolls,
as used in London and Singapore to discourage driving in downtown areas.
The city's planners want to ensure that at any time, on-street parking is no
more than 85 percent occupied. This strategy is based on research by Mr.
Shoup, who has estimated that drivers searching for curbside parking are
responsible for as much of 30 percent of the traffic in central business
districts."

"In one small Los Angeles business district that he studied over the course
of a year, cars cruising for parking created the equivalent of 38 trips
around the world, burning 47,000 gallons of gasoline and producing 730 tons
of carbon dioxide."

"The heart of the system is a wirelessly connected sensor embedded in a
4-inch-by-4-inch piece of plastic glued to the pavement adjacent to each
parking space. It will be possible to monitor air quality as well as deploy
noise sensors that act as sentries for everything from gunshots to car
crashes. Advocates assert that wireless sensor technology is now so
inexpensive and reliable that it is practical to use for essential city
services."

-----------

San Francisco has had a long time policy of reducing available parking to
force people into transit. The result is now clear that the emphasis on
"transit first" (their planning motto since the 1950's) has increased
traffic congestion, pollution, and CO2 increases. SF has the most transit
in the Bay Area as well as the highest congestion, highest pollution as a
result. There have also been fights and at least one murder from parking
problems.

[Jym Dyer]

=v= WiFi for parking is kind of like Three-Card Monte.

Post by Jack May
San Francisco has had a long time policy of reducing available
parking to force people into transit.

=v= Jack May is wrong yet again. San Francisco absolutely does
not have such a policy, nor does any such thing in practice.
The city routinely approves the creation of any and all new car
parking, because they believe this eases congestion, even though
all indications is that it only serves to induce traffic.

=v= The policy for new development is a minimum of one offstreet
parking spot per unit; most developers push for more than that,
and generally get it. There have been a handful of projects
in higher-density areas close to transit that have requested a
variance from this minimum, and a few have gotten it, even in
the face of much high-profile panicked pissing and moaning.
(These few developments do not experience greater congestion
than developments that feature more parking.)

=v= The creation of offstreet parking in existing structures is
also a top priority for the city. Other priorities, like saving
street trees, suitable sidewalk space, front yards with foliage
(or at least permeable surfaces that won't overtax the city's
sewer system), ONstreet parking, historical preservation, and
even earthquake safety are all compromised for the manifest goal
of fitting as many cars into as large a garage as possible.

=v= San Francisco does have a "Transit First" policy on paper,
which its voters have *twice* mandated and strengthened, even
in the face of well-funded attempts to stop the policy. This
policy, however, has never challenged the creation of more
parking.
<_Jym_>

[Jack May]

Post by Jym Dyer
=v= WiFi for parking is kind of like Three-Card Monte.

Post by Jack May
San Francisco has had a long time policy of reducing available
parking to force people into transit.

=v= Jack May is wrong yet again. San Francisco absolutely does
not have such a policy, nor does any such thing in practice.
The city routinely approves the creation of any and all new car
parking, because they believe this eases congestion, even though
all indications is that it only serves to induce traffic.

Their actions have been to shut down parking when possible and they have
done it often. It may not be an official policy, but their actions over the
years have been very obvious.

Oh please tell us Jym why if SF has been so aggressive in approving more
parking, why do most people think that parking in SF is almost impossible.
Why are people going outside SF to shop where they do have parking instead
shopping less and less in SF over the years.

Post by Jym Dyer
=v= The policy for new development is a minimum of one offstreet
parking spot per unit; most developers push for more than that,
and generally get it. There have been a handful of projects
in higher-density areas close to transit that have requested a
variance from this minimum, and a few have gotten it, even in
the face of much high-profile panicked pissing and moaning.
(These few developments do not experience greater congestion
than developments that feature more parking.)

Now you are specifically showing the crap they throw up to try and stop
parking. Most other cities have a minimum amount of parking required for
businesses and homes. The SF policy is exactly the opposite to limit
parking as much as possible that they can get away with. Getting around
these city demands for less parking require time and money. Everybody is
not rich and has to give in to have a house.

Thanks for verifying what I said.

Post by Jym Dyer
=v= The creation of offstreet parking in existing structures is
also a top priority for the city. Other priorities, like saving
street trees, suitable sidewalk space, front yards with foliage
(or at least permeable surfaces that won't overtax the city's
sewer system), ONstreet parking, historical preservation, and
even earthquake safety are all compromised for the manifest goal
of fitting as many cars into as large a garage as possible.

In all the news reports on transportation planning in SF, I have never heard
any actions to try and increase parking. Your comment sound like your own
illusions.

Post by Jym Dyer
=v= San Francisco does have a "Transit First" policy on paper,
which its voters have *twice* mandated and strengthened, even
in the face of well-funded attempts to stop the policy. This
policy, however, has never challenged the creation of more
parking.

Transit First is often used to justify limiting parking to make transit be
the highest priority. Transit First is often raised in news stories when
anything to do with cars is discussed. Does not matter, SF has very
limited parking compared to other cities in the Bay Area. You may not be
able to see what has happened, but I doubt there are many people that will
claim that SF has adequate parking.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Jack May

Post by Jym Dyer
=v= WiFi for parking is kind of like Three-Card Monte.

Post by Jack May
San Francisco has had a long time policy of reducing available
parking to force people into transit.

=v= Jack May is wrong yet again. San Francisco absolutely does
not have such a policy, nor does any such thing in practice.
The city routinely approves the creation of any and all new car
parking, because they believe this eases congestion, even though
all indications is that it only serves to induce traffic.

Their actions have been to shut down parking when possible and they have
done it often. It may not be an official policy, but their actions over the
years have been very obvious.

Really? Like where? Surely you can cite some areas if they've "done it
often".

Post by Jack May
Oh please tell us Jym why if SF has been so aggressive in approving more
parking, why do most people think that parking in SF is almost impossible.
Why are people going outside SF to shop where they do have parking instead
shopping less and less in SF over the years.

Parking is almost impossible because (a) demand exceeds supply and (b)
it is not easy to add more parking spaces.

People may or may not be going outside SF to shop, but if they do, it
is either to get cheaper prices (in areas were rents are lower) such
as "big box" retail, which gives you a low cost, but abysmal, shopping
experience.

[Jack May]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Jack May

Post by Jym Dyer
=v= WiFi for parking is kind of like Three-Card Monte.

Really? Like where? Surely you can cite some areas if they've "done it
often".

Over the years there have been news stories about parking lots being shut
down. Since I don't work in SF I have not kept a record of where and when.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Jack May
Oh please tell us Jym why if SF has been so aggressive in approving more
parking, why do most people think that parking in SF is almost impossible.
Why are people going outside SF to shop where they do have parking instead
shopping less and less in SF over the years.

Parking is almost impossible because (a) demand exceeds supply and (b)
it is not easy to add more parking spaces.

There is probably enough space in SF to build parking garages. If the
wireless sensor show there the demand exceeds supply (good chance of being
true), then SF may be in a heap of trouble with the EPA and California since
the driving around to find parking is now known to be a significant
generator of pollution and CO2.

Post by Bill Z.
People may or may not be going outside SF to shop, but if they do, it
is either to get cheaper prices (in areas were rents are lower) such
as "big box" retail, which gives you a low cost, but abysmal, shopping
experience.

The stories have been about SF residents driving to Stonestown shopping
center instead of shopping in other parts of SF. I don't think Stonestown
has any big boxes stores. There are probably other SF residents driving to
big box stores outside of SF. There are some big box stores in SF, but I
don't know much about them.

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by Jack May

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Jym Dyer
=v= WiFi for parking is kind of like Three-Card Monte.

Really? Like where? Surely you can cite some areas if they've "done it
often".

Over the years there have been news stories about parking lots being shut
down. Since I don't work in SF I have not kept a record of where and when.

In other words:

"I don't know. I'm sorry; I apoligize to you for wasting your time by
making stuff up and then claiming that I saw it in a newspaper or
magazine article. I know I've behaved like a perfect sham, making
up claims out of thin air and then not being able to back them up."

[Don Freeman]

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Jack May

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Jym Dyer
=v= WiFi for parking is kind of like Three-Card Monte.

Really? Like where? Surely you can cite some areas if they've "done it
often".

Over the years there have been news stories about parking lots being
shut down. Since I don't work in SF I have not kept a record of
where and when.

"I don't know. I'm sorry; I apoligize to you for wasting your time by
making stuff up and then claiming that I saw it in a newspaper or
magazine article. I know I've behaved like a perfect sham, making
up claims out of thin air and then not being able to back them up."

Oh come on, give the guy a break. He probably heard it from his barber
who heard it from his nephew (twice removed) who heard it from some guy
muttering to himself on Market St.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Jack May

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Jack May

Post by Jym Dyer
=v= WiFi for parking is kind of like Three-Card Monte.

Really? Like where? Surely you can cite some areas if they've "done it
often".

Over the years there have been news stories about parking lots being shut
down. Since I don't work in SF I have not kept a record of where and when.

In other words, you are trusting your memory, which isn't all that great (see
below). And if a lot was shut down, was it city policy or did the person who
owned it sell it to a developer who wanted to put up a building there? Are
you (gasp) blaming a free market? Do you think parking lot owners should be
told what to do with their property and shouldn't be able to use the land
for something more profitable? How does that square with your general
"free market ueber alles" attitude? :-)

Post by Jack May

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Jack May
Oh please tell us Jym why if SF has been so aggressive in approving more
parking, why do most people think that parking in SF is almost impossible.
Why are people going outside SF to shop where they do have parking instead
shopping less and less in SF over the years.

Parking is almost impossible because (a) demand exceeds supply and (b)
it is not easy to add more parking spaces.

There is probably enough space in SF to build parking garages.

ROTFLMAO. They already *have* parking garages.

Post by Jack May

Post by Bill Z.
People may or may not be going outside SF to shop, but if they do, it
is either to get cheaper prices (in areas were rents are lower) such
as "big box" retail, which gives you a low cost, but abysmal, shopping
experience.

The stories have been about SF residents driving to Stonestown
shopping center instead of shopping in other parts of SF. I don't
think Stonestown has any big boxes stores. There are probably other
SF residents driving to big box stores outside of SF. There are some
big box stores in SF, but I don't know much about them.

In <news:JqadnUQlPNyES-***@comcast.com>, why did you
write, "Oh please tell us Jym why if SF has been so aggressive in
approving more parking, why do most people think that parking in SF is
almost impossible. Why are people going outside SF to shop where they
do have parking instead shopping less and less in SF over the years."

You claimed people were leaving SF to shop and now claim they are shopping
within the city, with some unknown number going outside, but you don't
"know much about them."

Jack, you just contradicted yourself. And you wonder why we don't take
you seriously. :-)

[Jym Dyer]

If the wireless sensor show there the demand exceeds supply
(good chance of being true), then SF may be in a heap of
trouble with the EPA and California since the driving around
to find parking is now known to be a significant generator
of pollution and CO2.

=v= That kind of thinking was cutting-edge in 1970, but decades
of experience has shown this to be illusory thinking, because
at the level of density involved, demand increases with supply.
Same principle as induced traffic (which Jack May claims does
not exist, though the inevitable attempt to obtain some shred
of support for that claim has been about as successful as all
other such attempts).
<_Jym_>

[Jym Dyer]

Post by Jack May
Over the years there have been news stories about parking lots
being shut down. Since I don't work in SF I have not kept a
record of where and when.

=v= The only such stories I'm aware of refer to a temporary loss
of parking during construction projects. There was a dishonest
attempt to use this the campaign for 2007's Proposition H, which
would mandate more parking per unit. One overestimate of this
temporary loss was 10,000 spaces.

=v= Prop H was bankrolled in part by Webcor, so I took a peek
at Webcor's website, looked at their San Francisco projects,
and tallied up over 10,000 parking spaces built in recent years.
(And they are by no means the only ones building in the city.)
<_Jym_>

[Jym Dyer]

Post by Jack May
Most other cities have a minimum amount of parking required
for businesses and homes.

=v= AS I ALREADY WROTE, San Francisco does have a minimum
amount of parking required for businesses and homes. And,
like all other cities, there's the concept of a variance to
allow different things.

=v= AS I ALREADY WROTE, these variances are usually applied
to create more parking, not less.

Post by Jack May
The SF policy is exactly the opposite to limit parking as
much as possible that they can get away with.

=v= Here's the part where I make the inevitable attempt to
request some shred of support for a Jack May assertion.

Post by Jack May
In all the news reports on transportation planning in SF,
I have never heard any actions to try and increase parking.

=v= In all the news reports on new buildings and developments
in SF, the number of increased parking spots is nearly always
mentioned. Try to connect a dot or two.
<_Jym_>

[Brent Jonas]

Post by Jack May
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/business/12newpark.html?ref=technology
"This fall, San Francisco will test 6,000 of its 24,000 metered parking
spaces in the nation's most ambitious trial of a wireless sensor network
that will announce which of the spaces are free at any moment."
"Drivers will be alerted to empty parking places either by displays on
street signs, or by looking at maps on screens of their smartphones. They
may even be able to pay for parking by cellphone, and add to the parking
meter from their phones without returning to the car."
"About a dozen major cities are in discussions with technology companies to
deploy so-called smart parking systems, though San Francisco is ahead in its
efforts."
"Transportation Alternatives, a public transit advocacy group, reported that
28 percent to 45 percent of traffic on some streets in New York City is
generated by people circling the blocks.  The study also said that drivers
searching for metered parking in just a 15-block area of Columbus Avenue on
Manhattan's Upper West Side drove 366,000 miles a year."
"San Francisco's mayor, said that better parking systems were part of a
broader approach to managing congestion without imposing restrictive tolls,
as used in London and Singapore to discourage driving in downtown areas.
The city's planners want to ensure that at any time, on-street parking is no
more than 85 percent occupied. This strategy is based on research by Mr.
Shoup, who has estimated that drivers searching for curbside parking are
responsible for as much of 30 percent of the traffic in central business
districts."
"In one small Los Angeles business district that he studied over the course
of a year, cars cruising for parking created the equivalent of 38 trips
around the world, burning 47,000 gallons of gasoline and producing 730 tons
of carbon dioxide."
"The heart of the system is a wirelessly connected sensor embedded in a
4-inch-by-4-inch piece of plastic glued to the pavement adjacent to each
parking space.  It will be possible to monitor air quality as well as deploy
noise sensors that act as sentries for everything from gunshots to car
crashes.  Advocates assert that wireless sensor technology is now so
inexpensive and reliable that it is practical to use for essential city
services."
-----------
San Francisco has had a long time policy of reducing available parking to
force people into transit.   The result is now clear that the emphasis on
"transit first" (their planning motto since the 1950's) has increased
traffic congestion, pollution, and CO2 increases.   SF has the most transit
in the Bay Area as well as the highest congestion, highest pollution as a
result.  There have also been fights and at least one murder from parking
problems.

It routinely takes me 10 to 15 minutes to go from Union Square in
downtown to I-80 at 5 P.M.. Not bad at all.

Going north-to-south via 19th Ave/Park Presidio is usually no more
than 30 minutes, max, during rush hour. Again, not too bad.

The alternate is plowing a massive freeway through town...something
that's not doable.


-Brent

[richard]

Post by Jack May
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/business/12newpark.html?ref=technology
"This fall, San Francisco will test 6,000 of its 24,000 metered parking
spaces in the nation's most ambitious trial of a wireless sensor network
that will announce which of the spaces are free at any moment."

Well damn it anyway. I'm gonna have to stock up on aluminum foil and
increase the density of my personal radio wave protector suit.

Some genius from MIT is then gonna come up with a hack so that all he
has to do is press a button and expire all those meters at once. Or he
can put the system on an endless loop so that it restarts the clock
automatically every 5 minutes.

[Jym Dyer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/business/12newpark.html

Post by richard
Some genius from MIT is then gonna come up with a hack so that
all he has to do is press a button and expire all those meters
at once.

=v= Instant free parking everywhere!

=v= My own favorite aspects of this scheme:

| Drivers will be alerted to empty parking places either by
| displays on street signs, or by looking at maps on screens
| of their smartphones. They may even be able to pay for
| parking by cellphone ....

=v= So, in addition to lurching, drifting, pulling U-turns,
and/or stopping without warning at random driveways and fire
hydrants in the quest for parking, they'll be looking at tiny
little maps and making online purchases while driving. Life
just gets better and better!

| "The broader picture is what we're building is an operating
| system for the city that allows you to talk to or control all
| the inanimate objects out there to reduce the cost and improve
| quality of city services," ...

=v= Such a system would of course never be abused to control
any pesky animate objects. You know the type, wandering or
biking around as if they have civil rights or something.

| "There isn't a person who hasn't experienced the travails of
| going around the block multiple times searching for a parking
| space, using gas and wasting time and generating greenhouse
| gases," [Newsom] said.

=v= So if you're in one of the city's 30% of carfree households,
the mayor doesn't think you're a person?
<_Jym_>

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Jack May
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/business/12newpark.html?ref=technology
"This fall, San Francisco will test 6,000 of its 24,000 metered parking
spaces in the nation's most ambitious trial of a wireless sensor network
that will announce which of the spaces are free at any moment."
"Drivers will be alerted to empty parking places either by displays on
street signs, or by looking at maps on screens of their smartphones. They
may even be able to pay for parking by cellphone, and add to the parking
meter from their phones without returning to the car."
"About a dozen major cities are in discussions with technology companies
to deploy so-called smart parking systems, though San Francisco is ahead
in its efforts."
"Transportation Alternatives, a public transit advocacy group, reported
that 28 percent to 45 percent of traffic on some streets in New York City
is generated by people circling the blocks. The study also said that
drivers searching for metered parking in just a 15-block area of Columbus
Avenue on Manhattan's Upper West Side drove 366,000 miles a year."
"San Francisco's mayor, said that better parking systems were part of a
broader approach to managing congestion without imposing restrictive
tolls, as used in London and Singapore to discourage driving in downtown
areas. The city's planners want to ensure that at any time, on-street
parking is no more than 85 percent occupied. This strategy is based on
research by Mr. Shoup, who has estimated that drivers searching for
curbside parking are responsible for as much of 30 percent of the traffic
in central business districts."
"In one small Los Angeles business district that he studied over the
course of a year, cars cruising for parking created the equivalent of 38
trips around the world, burning 47,000 gallons of gasoline and producing
730 tons of carbon dioxide."
"The heart of the system is a wirelessly connected sensor embedded in a
4-inch-by-4-inch piece of plastic glued to the pavement adjacent to each
parking space. It will be possible to monitor air quality as well as
deploy noise sensors that act as sentries for everything from gunshots to
car crashes. Advocates assert that wireless sensor technology is now so
inexpensive and reliable that it is practical to use for essential city
services."
-----------
San Francisco has had a long time policy of reducing available parking to
force people into transit. The result is now clear that the emphasis on
"transit first" (their planning motto since the 1950's) has increased
traffic congestion, pollution, and CO2 increases. SF has the most
transit in the Bay Area as well as the highest congestion, highest
pollution as a result. There have also been fights and at least one
murder from parking problems.

I thought you were of the opinion that conserving by not forcing people to
waste so much was never going to work. Tsk, tsk.

[Jack May]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Jack May
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/business/12newpark.html?ref=technology
"This fall, San Francisco will test 6,000 of its 24,000 metered parking
spaces in the nation's most ambitious trial of a wireless sensor network
that will announce which of the spaces are free at any moment."
"Drivers will be alerted to empty parking places either by displays on
street signs, or by looking at maps on screens of their smartphones. They
may even be able to pay for parking by cellphone, and add to the parking
meter from their phones without returning to the car."
"About a dozen major cities are in discussions with technology companies
to deploy so-called smart parking systems, though San Francisco is ahead
in its efforts."
"Transportation Alternatives, a public transit advocacy group, reported
that 28 percent to 45 percent of traffic on some streets in New York City
is generated by people circling the blocks. The study also said that
drivers searching for metered parking in just a 15-block area of Columbus
Avenue on Manhattan's Upper West Side drove 366,000 miles a year."
"San Francisco's mayor, said that better parking systems were part of a
broader approach to managing congestion without imposing restrictive
tolls, as used in London and Singapore to discourage driving in downtown
areas. The city's planners want to ensure that at any time, on-street
parking is no more than 85 percent occupied. This strategy is based on
research by Mr. Shoup, who has estimated that drivers searching for
curbside parking are responsible for as much of 30 percent of the traffic
in central business districts."
"In one small Los Angeles business district that he studied over the
course of a year, cars cruising for parking created the equivalent of 38
trips around the world, burning 47,000 gallons of gasoline and producing
730 tons of carbon dioxide."
"The heart of the system is a wirelessly connected sensor embedded in a
4-inch-by-4-inch piece of plastic glued to the pavement adjacent to each
parking space. It will be possible to monitor air quality as well as
deploy noise sensors that act as sentries for everything from gunshots to
car crashes. Advocates assert that wireless sensor technology is now so
inexpensive and reliable that it is practical to use for essential city
services."
-----------
San Francisco has had a long time policy of reducing available parking to
force people into transit. The result is now clear that the emphasis on
"transit first" (their planning motto since the 1950's) has increased
traffic congestion, pollution, and CO2 increases. SF has the most
transit in the Bay Area as well as the highest congestion, highest
pollution as a result. There have also been fights and at least one
murder from parking problems.

I thought you were of the opinion that conserving by not forcing people to
waste so much was never going to work. Tsk, tsk.

You are lying about what I said or can't understand a simple comment.

What I said is that calling for conservation almost never works. People
conserve for economic or other limits that will help them personally. They
seldom conserve by politicians or bureaucrats calling for conservation to
help society or other non-personal reasons.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Jack May

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Jack May
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/business/12newpark.html?ref=technology
"This fall, San Francisco will test 6,000 of its 24,000 metered parking
spaces in the nation's most ambitious trial of a wireless sensor network
that will announce which of the spaces are free at any moment."
"Drivers will be alerted to empty parking places either by displays on
street signs, or by looking at maps on screens of their smartphones.
They may even be able to pay for parking by cellphone, and add to the
parking meter from their phones without returning to the car."
"About a dozen major cities are in discussions with technology companies
to deploy so-called smart parking systems, though San Francisco is ahead
in its efforts."
"Transportation Alternatives, a public transit advocacy group, reported
that 28 percent to 45 percent of traffic on some streets in New York
City is generated by people circling the blocks. The study also said
that drivers searching for metered parking in just a 15-block area of
Columbus Avenue on Manhattan's Upper West Side drove 366,000 miles a
year."
"San Francisco's mayor, said that better parking systems were part of a
broader approach to managing congestion without imposing restrictive
tolls, as used in London and Singapore to discourage driving in downtown
areas. The city's planners want to ensure that at any time, on-street
parking is no more than 85 percent occupied. This strategy is based on
research by Mr. Shoup, who has estimated that drivers searching for
curbside parking are responsible for as much of 30 percent of the
traffic in central business districts."
"In one small Los Angeles business district that he studied over the
course of a year, cars cruising for parking created the equivalent of 38
trips around the world, burning 47,000 gallons of gasoline and producing
730 tons of carbon dioxide."
"The heart of the system is a wirelessly connected sensor embedded in a
4-inch-by-4-inch piece of plastic glued to the pavement adjacent to each
parking space. It will be possible to monitor air quality as well as
deploy noise sensors that act as sentries for everything from gunshots
to car crashes. Advocates assert that wireless sensor technology is now
so inexpensive and reliable that it is practical to use for essential
city services."
-----------
San Francisco has had a long time policy of reducing available parking
to force people into transit. The result is now clear that the
emphasis on "transit first" (their planning motto since the 1950's) has
increased traffic congestion, pollution, and CO2 increases. SF has the
most transit in the Bay Area as well as the highest congestion, highest
pollution as a result. There have also been fights and at least one
murder from parking problems.

I thought you were of the opinion that conserving by not forcing people
to waste so much was never going to work. Tsk, tsk.

You are lying about what I said or can't understand a simple comment.
What I said is that calling for conservation almost never works. People
conserve for economic or other limits that will help them personally.
They seldom conserve by politicians or bureaucrats calling for
conservation to help society or other non-personal reasons.

I wasn't actually calling for conservation, though that is nice, too. What
I said (which apparently _you_ couldn't comprehend), was that we need to
quit arranging the world in such a way that it _forces_ people to waste
fuel, time, and other resources. _You_ chose to translate that to a call
for conservation.

[Jack May]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Jack May
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/business/12newpark.html?ref=technology

I wasn't actually calling for conservation, though that is nice, too.
What I said (which apparently _you_ couldn't comprehend), was that we need
to quit arranging the world in such a way that it _forces_ people to waste
fuel, time, and other resources. _You_ chose to translate that to a call
for conservation.

Not possible. Its a free market and people decide what they want to meet
the needs of their life, not the wishes of planners. Car companies are
constantly designing and redesigning cars to meet the needs of people that
they learn about from their customers.

Time is usually the most important need which is why the car dominates the
market over sloooooooooooow transit. Fuel economy is obviously in high
demand now and car companies are working hard to meet that demand.

Soon the demand will be for cars that use fuels other than gasoline from
oil. Car companies are working to get ready for what ever society
eventually adopts as the replacement for gasoline. They are also working
towards automated cars where the drive can do other things while they go to
and from work or elsewhere.

[brink]

Post by Jack May

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Jack May
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/business/12newpark.html?ref=technology

I wasn't actually calling for conservation, though that is nice, too.
What I said (which apparently _you_ couldn't comprehend), was that
we need to quit arranging the world in such a way that it _forces_
people to waste fuel, time, and other resources. _You_ chose to
translate that to a call for conservation.

Not possible. Its a free market and people decide what they want to
meet the needs of their life, not the wishes of planners.

How is Amy's statement contradictory in any way to this assertion? Sounds
like she's all about increasing efficiency -- something that is a goal of
free markets.

brink

[Laurence Sheldon]

Post by brink

Post by Jack May

Post by Amy Blankenship
I wasn't actually calling for conservation, though that is nice, too.
What I said (which apparently _you_ couldn't comprehend), was that
we need to quit arranging the world in such a way that it _forces_
people to waste fuel, time, and other resources. _You_ chose to
translate that to a call for conservation.

Not possible. Its a free market and people decide what they want to
meet the needs of their life, not the wishes of planners.

How is Amy's statement contradictory in any way to this assertion?
Sounds like she's all about increasing efficiency -- something that is a
goal of free markets.

It turns out every now and again that my best interests don't mesh well
with what the Planners think I should do.

Hard as that may be to imagine.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Laurence Sheldon

Post by brink

Post by Jack May

Post by Amy Blankenship
I wasn't actually calling for conservation, though that is nice, too.
What I said (which apparently _you_ couldn't comprehend), was that
we need to quit arranging the world in such a way that it _forces_
people to waste fuel, time, and other resources. _You_ chose to
translate that to a call for conservation.

Not possible. Its a free market and people decide what they want to
meet the needs of their life, not the wishes of planners.

How is Amy's statement contradictory in any way to this assertion?
Sounds like she's all about increasing efficiency -- something that is a
goal of free markets.

It turns out every now and again that my best interests don't mesh well
with what the Planners think I should do.
Hard as that may be to imagine.

You're right. You killed that straw man VERY dead. Go you!

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by Laurence Sheldon

Post by brink

Post by Jack May

Post by Amy Blankenship
I wasn't actually calling for conservation, though that is nice, too.
What I said (which apparently _you_ couldn't comprehend), was that
we need to quit arranging the world in such a way that it _forces_
people to waste fuel, time, and other resources. _You_ chose to
translate that to a call for conservation.

Not possible. Its a free market and people decide what they want to
meet the needs of their life, not the wishes of planners.

How is Amy's statement contradictory in any way to this assertion?
Sounds like she's all about increasing efficiency -- something that is a
goal of free markets.

It turns out every now and again that my best interests don't mesh well
with what the Planners think I should do.
Hard as that may be to imagine.

But we know why that is: it's because you're a crusty old fart.

Don't take offense; I'm getting there too. And a small part of me
(10-20%) does agree with your objections to what the Nanny State wants.

Unfortunately, we are rapidly approaching, or perhaps have even crossed,
that point where our cranky, idiosyncratic preferences (what some call
"freedom") are just too damn expensive, given the crisis conditions
(environmental, economic and geopolitical) we live in.

Reminds me of a good friend, who shall forever remain nameless, who's
probably older than you, who absolutely refuses to follow those
counterclockwise traffic circles: he just makes a normal left turn at
them, the pointy-headed traffic planners be damned. I never say
anything, but just chuckle (and express silent gratitude that there's
not another old fart like him coming the opposite direction).

[Laurence Sheldon]

Post by David Nebenzahl
Reminds me of a good friend, who shall forever remain nameless, who's
probably older than you, who absolutely refuses to follow those
counterclockwise traffic circles: he just makes a normal left turn at
them, the pointy-headed traffic planners be damned. I never say
anything, but just chuckle (and express silent gratitude that there's
not another old fart like him coming the opposite direction).

That of course has nothing whatever to do with the subject at hand, but
you knew that.

Your (probably fictitious[1]) little example has very little to do with
being an adult responsible for your own actions.

[1] roundabouts in my experience ("mini" roundabouts excepted) are
constructed such that that would be nearly impossible.

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by Laurence Sheldon

Post by David Nebenzahl
Reminds me of a good friend, who shall forever remain nameless, who's
probably older than you, who absolutely refuses to follow those
counterclockwise traffic circles: he just makes a normal left turn at
them, the pointy-headed traffic planners be damned. I never say
anything, but just chuckle (and express silent gratitude that there's
not another old fart like him coming the opposite direction).

That of course has nothing whatever to do with the subject at hand, but
you knew that.

Mmmm, tangentially related, I'd say. Responding to your complaint about
being told what to do, basically.

Post by Laurence Sheldon
Your (probably fictitious[1]) little example has very little to do with
being an adult responsible for your own actions.
[1] roundabouts in my experience ("mini" roundabouts excepted) are
constructed such that that would be nearly impossible.

Nope. Not fictitious at all. I'd never make up anything that stupid. And
this particular roundabout (in S.F.) is a "mini" roundabout that's
easily negotiable the "wrong" way.

[Laurence Sheldon]

Post by David Nebenzahl
Mmmm, tangentially related, I'd say. Responding to your complaint about
being told what to do, basically.

Yes. But.... Being told not rob banks or piss in the salad bowl are not
quite what we were talking about, are they.

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Laurence Sheldon
Your (probably fictitious[1]) little example has very little to do
with being an adult responsible for your own actions.
[1] roundabouts in my experience ("mini" roundabouts excepted) are
constructed such that that would be nearly impossible.

Nope. Not fictitious at all. I'd never make up anything that stupid. And
this particular roundabout (in S.F.) is a "mini" roundabout that's
easily negotiable the "wrong" way.

S. F. I see.

Oh. Where is this roundabout? I have not been there for a while.

[1100GS_rider]

Post by David Nebenzahl
Unfortunately, we are rapidly approaching, or perhaps have even crossed,
that point where our cranky, idiosyncratic preferences (what some call
"freedom") are just too damn expensive, given the crisis conditions
(environmental, economic and geopolitical) we live in.

There are *always* crisis conditions.

[Steve Fenwick]

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Laurence Sheldon

Post by brink

Post by Jack May

Post by Amy Blankenship
I wasn't actually calling for conservation, though that is nice, too.
What I said (which apparently _you_ couldn't comprehend), was that
we need to quit arranging the world in such a way that it _forces_
people to waste fuel, time, and other resources. _You_ chose to
translate that to a call for conservation.

Not possible. Its a free market and people decide what they want to
meet the needs of their life, not the wishes of planners.

How is Amy's statement contradictory in any way to this assertion?
Sounds like she's all about increasing efficiency -- something that is a
goal of free markets.

It turns out every now and again that my best interests don't mesh well
with what the Planners think I should do.
Hard as that may be to imagine.

But we know why that is: it's because you're a crusty old fart.
Don't take offense; I'm getting there too. And a small part of me
(10-20%) does agree with your objections to what the Nanny State wants.
Unfortunately, we are rapidly approaching, or perhaps have even crossed,
that point where our cranky, idiosyncratic preferences (what some call
"freedom") are just too damn expensive, given the crisis conditions
(environmental, economic and geopolitical) we live in.

The question is, will we collectively figure that out and make the
changes necessary to our infrastructure so that we can change how we
enjoy some freedoms (cheap travel, energy abundance) before we have to
give up freedoms that are more important (civil liberties,
democratically elected government, voluntary military service)?

Steve

[Jym Dyer]

Its [sic] a free market and people decide what they want to
meet the needs of their life, not the wishes of planners.

=v= If nobody planned roads, this statement might have some
grounding, or at least some sort of toehold, in reality.
<_Jym_>

[brink]

Post by Jack May
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/business/12newpark.html?ref=technology
"This fall, San Francisco will test 6,000 of its 24,000 metered
parking spaces in the nation's most ambitious trial of a wireless
sensor network that will announce which of the spaces are free at any
moment."
"Drivers will be alerted to empty parking places either by displays on
street signs, or by looking at maps on screens of their smartphones.
They may even be able to pay for parking by cellphone, and add to the
parking meter from their phones without returning to the car."
"About a dozen major cities are in discussions with technology
companies to deploy so-called smart parking systems, though San
Francisco is ahead in its efforts."
"Transportation Alternatives, a public transit advocacy group,
reported that 28 percent to 45 percent of traffic on some streets in
New York City is generated by people circling the blocks. The study
also said that drivers searching for metered parking in just a
15-block area of Columbus Avenue on Manhattan's Upper West Side drove
366,000 miles a year."
"San Francisco's mayor, said that better parking systems were part of
a broader approach to managing congestion without imposing
restrictive tolls, as used in London and Singapore to discourage
driving in downtown areas. The city's planners want to ensure that at
any time, on-street parking is no more than 85 percent occupied. This
strategy is based on research by Mr. Shoup, who has estimated that
drivers searching for curbside parking are responsible for as much of
30 percent of the traffic in central business districts."
"In one small Los Angeles business district that he studied over the
course of a year, cars cruising for parking created the equivalent of
38 trips around the world, burning 47,000 gallons of gasoline and
producing 730 tons of carbon dioxide."

Tangential point: I wonder how much widely-adopted technological
improvements like GPS systems have reduced traffic?

I have no clue what the actual number is, but it's safe to say that any
given time the percentage of traffic on a given freeway, highway, or
thoroughfare that is lost is great than zero percent. On routes with lots
of non-local traffic -- some San Fran and NYC city streets certainly
qualify -- I'd think that percentage could get pretty high at times, maybe
as high as 10 percent. Think about how that affects traffic, fuel
consumption, and pollution, not to mention safety since lost drivers tend to
be bad drivers.

Has anyone attempted to quantify how GPS devices have increased efficiency
of roads? Could such a thing be accurately measured?

brink

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by brink
Tangential point: I wonder how much widely-adopted technological
improvements like GPS systems have reduced traffic?
I have no clue what the actual number is, but it's safe to say that any
given time the percentage of traffic on a given freeway, highway, or
thoroughfare that is lost is great than zero percent. On routes with lots
of non-local traffic -- some San Fran and NYC city streets certainly
qualify -- I'd think that percentage could get pretty high at times, maybe
as high as 10 percent. Think about how that affects traffic, fuel
consumption, and pollution, not to mention safety since lost drivers tend to
be bad drivers.

For those that are not 'lost', there are a percentage of drivers that
make a few wrong turns while driving to an unfamiliar destination,
thereby traveling some extra miles in the process.

[Larry G]

Post by brink

Post by Jack May
"About a dozen major cities are in discussions with technology
companies to deploy so-called smart parking systems, though San
Francisco is ahead in its efforts."

I have no clue what the actual number is, but it's safe to say that any
given time the percentage of traffic on a given freeway, highway, or
thoroughfare that is lost is great than zero percent.  On routes with lots
of non-local traffic -- some San Fran and NYC city streets certainly
qualify -- I'd think that percentage could get pretty high at times, maybe
as high as 10 percent.  Think about how that affects traffic, fuel
consumption, and pollution, not to mention safety since lost drivers tend to
be bad drivers.
Has anyone attempted to quantify how GPS devices have increased efficiency
of roads?  Could such a thing be accurately measured?

The potential is HUGE. The standard that is fast approaching for GPS
units is real-time traffic data and a routing engine that not only
finds the optimal route - geographically - but with respect to real-
time traffic.

If enough drivers have these units - the entire network in a region
could .. start to achieve some level of optimized balance.... or to
put it another way - congestion will be spread around more evenly.

GPS units with real time traffic data -and Highway network modeling -
have the potential to help define what transportation improvement will
have the most bang for the buck..,. if reducing overall delay-time is
the goal.

this whole arena could transform traffic management as we know it
IMHO.

[Steve Fenwick]

In article

Post by Larry G

Post by brink

Post by Jack May
"About a dozen major cities are in discussions with technology
companies to deploy so-called smart parking systems, though San
Francisco is ahead in its efforts."

I have no clue what the actual number is, but it's safe to say that any
given time the percentage of traffic on a given freeway, highway, or
thoroughfare that is lost is great than zero percent.  On routes with lots
of non-local traffic -- some San Fran and NYC city streets certainly
qualify -- I'd think that percentage could get pretty high at times, maybe
as high as 10 percent.  Think about how that affects traffic, fuel
consumption, and pollution, not to mention safety since lost drivers tend to
be bad drivers.
Has anyone attempted to quantify how GPS devices have increased efficiency
of roads?  Could such a thing be accurately measured?

The potential is HUGE. The standard that is fast approaching for GPS
units is real-time traffic data and a routing engine that not only
finds the optimal route - geographically - but with respect to real-
time traffic.
If enough drivers have these units - the entire network in a region
could .. start to achieve some level of optimized balance.... or to
put it another way - congestion will be spread around more evenly.
GPS units with real time traffic data -and Highway network modeling -
have the potential to help define what transportation improvement will
have the most bang for the buck..,. if reducing overall delay-time is
the goal.
this whole arena could transform traffic management as we know it
IMHO.

Of course, without any central management to the recommended course
changes, it could just introduce a huge positive feedback loop into the
system, as tens of thousands of units all steer their drivers from one
favored route to another. 880, over to 680, back to 880, etc.

Steve

[Laurence Sheldon]

Post by Steve Fenwick
Of course, without any central management to the recommended course
changes, it could just introduce a huge positive feedback loop into the
system, as tens of thousands of units all steer their drivers from one
favored route to another. 880, over to 680, back to 880, etc.

I find ideas that use the words "central management" and "collective" to
be very very frightening.

"Collective" is OK if we are talking about helicopters.

[Steve Fenwick]

Post by Laurence Sheldon

Post by Steve Fenwick
Of course, without any central management to the recommended course
changes, it could just introduce a huge positive feedback loop into the
system, as tens of thousands of units all steer their drivers from one
favored route to another. 880, over to 680, back to 880, etc.

I find ideas that use the words "central management" and "collective" to
be very very frightening.
"Collective" is OK if we are talking about helicopters.

I didn't use the word "collective". "Central management" is not a
reference to a Stalinist ideal; central management methods are used all
over the world in mechanical systems, to good effect (e.g., to schedule
the elevators in large buildings, run the HVAC, etc.).

Steve

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by Steve Fenwick

Post by Laurence Sheldon

Post by Steve Fenwick
Of course, without any central management to the recommended course
changes, it could just introduce a huge positive feedback loop into the
system, as tens of thousands of units all steer their drivers from one
favored route to another. 880, over to 680, back to 880, etc.

I find ideas that use the words "central management" and "collective" to
be very very frightening.
"Collective" is OK if we are talking about helicopters.

I didn't use the word "collective". "Central management" is not a
reference to a Stalinist ideal; central management methods are used all
over the world in mechanical systems, to good effect (e.g., to schedule
the elevators in large buildings, run the HVAC, etc.).

I *told* you he was a crusty old fart ...

[Laurence Sheldon]

Post by brink
Tangential point: I wonder how much widely-adopted technological
improvements like GPS systems have reduced traffic?

Interesting question. Be sure to factor in the additional congestion
from accidents caused people being distracted from the WSJ by the GPS
and their Blackberry.

I still think figuring out where you want to go and how to get there
before you go near a car is a good idea.

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by Laurence Sheldon

Post by brink
Tangential point: I wonder how much widely-adopted technological
improvements like GPS systems have reduced traffic?

Interesting question. Be sure to factor in the additional congestion
from accidents caused people being distracted from the WSJ by the GPS
and their Blackberry.
I still think figuring out where you want to go and how to get there
before you go near a car is a good idea.

But that's *so* old-school: actually *planning* your trip? Or even, for
that matter, planning what lane you should be in.

These young cyber-punks (and by that I mean the majority of drivers
under, well, under my age) would rather just "live for the moment": in
other words, let their trip planner figure things out, and if they have
to make a rude 4-lane death-defying dash for their exit, then tough
shit. Just doin' what I gotta do.

[Jym Dyer]

These young cyber-punks ...

=v= ITYM cyber-dorks. Cyber-punks hack into things for
nefarious purposes. Cyber-dorks just fall for whatever
gadget comes along and realign their lives around it.
<_Jym_>