Robotic Parking Systems Inc., a Pinellas Park, Florida based company, announced the successful throughput testing of its recently completed 2,350 capacity Al Jahra Court Automatic Parking System in Kuwait. TÜV Nord certified a peak traffic throughput capacity of 425 cars per hour. Throughput capacity is the total number of cars per hour that can be handled in a combination of inbound and outbound vehicle traffic. Additionally, the average retrieval time for a single vehicle was verified as 177 seconds.
“The peak traffic throughput measurement is much more critical in the day to day operations of an automated garage than a single vehicle retrieval time. No other manufacturer in the automatic parking industry has this level of performance verification by an independent third party. We met and exceeded the contractual performance requirements of 400 cars per hour throughput and single retrieval time of 220 seconds,” said Royce Monteverdi, CEO of Robotic Parking Systems Inc.
With this record, Robotic Parking Systems has positioned itself not only as the largest automatic parking facility in the world but also as the manufacturer with the highest peak traffic capacity worldwide. The Al Jahra Court facility surpasses the Emirates Financial Tower garage in Dubai (designed and manufactured by Robotic Parking Systems) that achieved the Guinness World Record as the largest automatic garage with 1,200 parking spaces in 2011.
Juergen Bauer, Chairman of Robotic Parking Systems Inc., emphasized “Robotic Parking Systems has demonstrated the viability of its patented lift-and-run system over and over again. Today, with more than 5,000 units built, the company is the strongest market participant in the Western Hemisphere and perfectly positioned for the North American market. With its latest adaptation to emerging technologies – CASE: Connectivity, Autonomous Driving, Sharing and Services and Electrification – Robotic Parking Systems is well aligned with Smart City applications.”
One of the many benefits of Robotic Parking Systems is that you can park twice as many cars in the same amount of space as conventional ramp-style garages.
Others are looking at reducing the space needed for parking with solutions such as folding cars. Folding cars? You read it correctly; folding cars.
(Marketwire) The world’s very first car that folds into itself to save parking space is set to be launched. The Hiriko folding electric car is a prototype that has been developed by the partnership of the Basque businesses, the Spanish government, and the MIT Media Lab, a US research firm. The tiny bubble car is scheduled to go into production in Spain next year.
The new vehicle, which has been dubbed as a ‘capsule-like city car’ is to be unveiled in Brussels by Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission and it is reported that it is powered by four in-wheel motors. Each wheel is said to be independently driven and steers by ‘robot’ in-wheel electric motors to increase maneuverability. The conventional steering wheel has been replaced by a ‘joystick’ which tugs on the driver’s fingers when ordered by a navigation system.
The manufacturers claim that the car only uses two-thirds of the footprint of a Smart car and the aim of the project is to free up the many miles of car parking space that inhabits cities. Around 20 vehicles will be deployed on a trial basis from autumn this year in several European and American cities including Boston, in Massachusetts, Malmo in Sweden, and Bilbao in Spain.
The driver as well as the passenger enters and leaves the Hiriko through one single door at the front of the car.
I think the broad use of automated parking systems to reduce land area needed for parking is a much more current and practical solution for the US. We can still save space on parking and keep our sedans and SUVs to move around the kids, groceries and those home improvement materials.
Here is a practical contribution to the parking space discussion that started with Tyler Cowen’s article in the NYT and continued with Randal O’Toole from the Cato Institute about Professor Donald C. Shoup’s (UCLA) thesis on:
1) remove off-street parking requirements, (2) charge market prices for on-street parking to achieve about an 85-percent occupancy rate for curb spaces, and (3) return the resulting revenue to pay for public improvements in the metered neighborhoods.
A lot of the discussion is really academic. If it is true that “Mobility is a Right” as the Canadian Parking Symposium derived some 10 years ago, then it follows that car ownership is a right too. If so, it all boils down to simply a) the amount of cars searching for a parking space (or needing one), and b) the supply of it – let aside the cost. There are numerous examples around the world that evidence zero traffic reduction by imposing higher parking fees or tolls on roads. These measures have proven to be nothing else than a lame excuse for just imposing taxes in other ways.
And, it is another hoax to think traffic can be reduced by reducing available parking or driving restrictions – see examples NYC, Boston, SF and others which imposed a parking garage moratorium some 30 years ago due to some misconceptions coming from the sprawling “green discussions” or derivates from the “Club of Rome” theories. Of course, I’m talking about downtowns – real inner cities’ traffic. And these moratoriums have brought us to the scientific research statement that describes reality: Don H. Pickrell, Chief Economist at DOT, Volpe Institute, Cambridge, MIT stated (issued in the Spring edition of ULI’s “Smart Growth” program 1999): “… recent research shows, that over 50 % of the traffic in typical down towns is simply on the road, cruising around blocks searching for vacant convenient parking spaces.”
That’s massive! You got to really stop reading and digest this before continuing; half the traffic! Imagine having enough parking available and reducing not only 50 % of the traffic, but at the same time also the emissions, noises, nuisances, waste of time and money, etc. What a massive impact, in micro and macro-economic epic dimensions on public and private sectors. Accumulated over some years, numbers that shadow all that were mentioned in this debate so far.
I wholeheartedly wish Donald Shoup great success with the sfpark.org model, really. I, however, have my doubts because of simply this one fact: he does not increase the amount of parking space. He tries to “manage” the available space of parking by the flexible cost of it. Yes, I looked at the video, and the mobile gadgets look great. However, if I plan to go to the post office and before I start my trip look into the availability with my mobile device, and it shows one or two free spaces (and don’t promote logging onto the mobile device while driving), there is no certainty in the world that once I actually arrive at this place – say 15 to 30 min later, the space will be still available. Most likely not.
And, there’s just no way around that. I need to go to this particular post office because my mailbox is there, because of … a lot of possible real reasons.
Sprawl mainly developed from two reasons: one, because more people moved to cities over the last several decades and two, because available parking was not enough, or public transport was not available and shoppers or visitors turned away to other non-core locations that provided exactly that. Although I’m not FOR minimum parking requirements, but on the other hand I don’t see how this lifting of, would have solved that issue either under the prevalent circumstances at that time.
All other discussion topics from “Because we buy and use cars without thinking about the cost of parking, we congest traffic, waste fuel, and pollute the air more than we would if we each paid for our own parking. Everyone parks free at everyone else’s expense.”
“America’s extravagant consumption of imported oil to fuel our cars is not sustainable, economically or environmentally,and anything that is not sustainable must eventually stop”.
Are really very academic and also misinterpreted or misconceived.
North America, as a country, compared to most other industrialized countries, has an extremely low density of population / square mile – also a very huge amount – if not the largest – of street miles/ citizen.
If the industrial – military complex would have allowed new technologies – we would have A LONG TIME ago substituted the oil burning motors. Already in 1985, an engineer friend of mine told me his employer, one of the largest automobile producers worldwide, had production ready plans of new motors in their drawers that do not consume any fossil energy. So, we truly can forget the entire debate about pollution and “global warming”, or wasting etc. Solutions are ready, were ready, to solve just that.
So, yes, lifting minimum parking requirements as well as increasing fees on parking meters, or applying floating fees for them is great and I support that completely. Let the free market run its mechanisms, and it will solve this as much as it can under the circumstances.
There’s just one missing element in implementing these steps. It follows that ALSO permits for private initiatives to build more parking in inner cities need to be given to complement the free market. This is where Randal O’Toole is absolutely right!
Shoup’s comment “but no city collects data on its total parking supply” is incomplete – at least in this one example I found from Columbus, Ohio, 15 years ago:
Now, we can SUBSTITUE the SAME AMOUT of parking with new automated parking technologies in about HALF the space and the picture will look like this:
Now, we can still use 50% of the saving (the green areas) and build 50% MORE parking by still keeping 25% of the original orange, or 50% of the green area for parks!
This is extremely impressive – not even theoretical or academic, it is a very REAL possibility!
Understood that not all of these orange areas can be substituted – possibly only some immediately. The city was not built in one day either. But over time, more and more can be regained for more parking AND green spaces! The example is intended to show the direction we can go towards in using new technologies readily available and proven.
Now, this, together with Shoup’s points 1) to 3) above will bring about a true and complete solution.
An invitation to form an initiative “FREE PARKING” (from its suppressive elements) and let the free markets respond to the demands! Shall we?
Robotic Parking Systems are “green” products that conserve gas and diesel since cars are not wasting energy being driven up and down ramps in search of a parking space. This significantly reduces the emissions of harmful gases and ensures an environmentally clean parking facility.
Here is an estimate of emissions reduction and energy saved in a 1,442 space robotic parking garage:
An annual savings of 19,828 gallons of gasoline in the parking process
The quantity of toxic emissions eliminated are:
2,885 lbs of Hydrocarbons (HC) per year
1,486 lbs of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) per year
11.149 tons of Carbon Monoxide (CO) per year
198 tons of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) per year
The 765 space Robotic Parking System built for the Ibn Battuta Gate Complex in Dubai reduces CO2 emissions by more than 100 tons per year with comparable reductions in other pollutants and greenhouse gases. It additionally saves 9,000 gallons of gasoline per year thus contributing significantly to carbon footprint reductions.
Robotic Parking Systems can reduce energy consumption and improve quality of life by positively affecting the way buildings and communities are designed, built and operated.
Transportation For America recently released survey results indicating that 59% of Americans would choose to reduce road congestion by adding more transportation options to the mix.
According to T4 America, “the desire to increase the amount of funding allocated to options beyond roads and highways was shared across demographic, geographic and political lines.”
Co-chairman Geoff Anderson reached this conclusion:
“In small towns and big cities alike, Americans are saying loudly and clearly that their lives would be better, and their nation stronger, if we had world-class public transportation and more options for walking and bicycling.”
82% support the idea of an expanded US transportation system. The kind of system that allows people to use their cars if they want to, but also allows easier use of other ways to get from place to place.
People overwhelming feel they have no choice right now, but a majority would like to spend less time in car.
73% stated “I have no choice but to drive as much as I do.”
57% stated “I would like to spend less time in my car.”
People want better transportation options that reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, reduce fuel consumption, options that improve and bring communities together.
In addition to reducing emissions and fuel consumption, a Robotic Parking Systems garage can create space for pedestrians, bicycles and for the community. An automated parking garage fits twice as many cars in half the space. With the additional space architects and developers can design and create greener and more livable communities.