Two visualizations of the London Oyster data:
A colleague asks, what cool things would you do with those underlying data (e.g. GoTo Card data for the Twin Cities)?
A reporter asked: How much parking is there in Minneapolis? This is not a question for which there is a well-sourced answer.
Downtown Parking: There are nearly 25,000 parking spaces in 38 parking lots and ramps throughout downtown,
In the City there are 7000 metered spaces:
Minneapolis Municipal Parking System has 17 parking ramps and 7 lots
These Ramps and Lots encompass over 20,000 parking spaces. (Subtracting this from the first estimate suggests only 5,000 parking spaces are private).
Outside of downtown requires estimating.
On street-unmetered parking? The City has 1100 miles of street . (I think this excludes state and county roads, I am not sure about park roads, but this is most of them). My guess is 200 spaces per mile (@ ~26 feet per car). If there were no “no parking restrictions” this gives 220,000 on-street spaces (The vast majority of which are unmetered).
Off-street private parking. There are 155,155 households. If each one has 1 off-street space (some have 2 or 3, some have 0), that would be 155,155 off-street spaces in residential areas. I would guess based on national data about twice as many in commercial areas. Roughly every car has to have a space at home, work, and shop.
In short there are lots of parking.
Does anyone have a better estimate?
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a city in possession of a good transit system must be in want of some posters. The art of the poster seems to have diminished with the emergence of so many alternative media, ranging from TV to Internet, and markets for commercial art from advertising to the Infographic. Yet we still want to communicate with transit users and encourage them to behave in certain ways (shop during the off-peak, don’t eat on the bus) or consider certain destinations.
While it would be great to have more new posters like the London ones in the upper left, we do not avail ourselves to the opportunities that are already present. I see ads for destinations at bus stops in the Twin Cities which don’t even tell you how to get there via transit. A recent one I saw was this otherwise excellent poster for the Como Zoo . How hard would it be for the Zoo ads (or all ads) to have a tag line at the bottom identifying which bus routes (the number 3) serve the Zoo? Maybe the transit agency could encourage posters for destinations to have brief transit information on the poster (by discounting the ad rate a little bit).
Sure, most customers won’t use it, half of advertising is wasted. Nevertheless, this piece of information lodges in the passerby’s mind that:
Does this matter to you?
If you use Twitter to read it: No
If you use Facebook to read it: No
If you use LinkedIn to read it: No
If you use Transportationist.org to read it: No
If you use an RSS feed of http://blog.umn.edu/levin031 from Google Reader or any other RSS Reader: YES … Subscribe to http://transportationist.org/feed/. Also note that Google Reader will be disappearing.
The old site will be there for a long time to preserve existing links in, but it will not be updated.
Thanks for your patience. Let me know if you spot problems.
The University of Minnesota’s Center for Transportation Studies and MnDOT have a Blog! Crossroads | A Minnesota transportation research blog
“Crossroads is a collaborative effort between MnDOT Research Services and the University of Minnesota’s Center for Transportation Studies. This jointly produced blog is devoted to highlighting the latest news and events in transportation research and innovation in Minnesota.”
If you have been following this blog, you may have detected a theme, I don’t like the public wasting money on un-needed infrastructure. Of course no-one endorses “wasting” money, we just disagree what is wasteful and what is an investment.
I think the answer is obvious in retrospect. A successful investment had a positive “return on investment” at or above market interest rates. An unsuccessful investment (or waste) had a negative return on investment. Projects with positive but below market rates of return sit in an analytical purgatory.
In prospect, I think I can assess forecasts accurately, and project advocates are not to be trusted for a variety of well-understood reasons ranging from optimism bias to strategic misrepresentation. Unfortunately, other people also think they can assess forecasts accurately, even if we know they can’t. If we had better mechanisms for requiring forecasters to be more accurate, we could mitigate these problems.
When these projects are small, it is not terribly important. The analysis of benefits and costs should not be costlier than than the benefits from the analysis (i.e. the difference in total welfare from a build/no build or a build this vs. build that decision). But when the project proponents ask for hundreds of millions of dollars (or more), we should be paying more attention.
A large number of projects seems to fall in the category of what I will dub “Mostly Empty Syndrome”. MES projects are infrastructure that are underutilized. Mostly they are not underutilized by design, but by mis-forecast. There are facilities however, like NFL stadiums, that are in fact underutilized by design, with lots of marginal events schedule to mitigate the grossness of the structure.
These are projects that serve purported needs, but those needs don’t materialize. Or they just are insufficient to justify the cost. Or they can be met in a different way. A few examples are listed below:
There are some counter-examples perhaps, projects that were long considered white elephants, though eventually demand caught up with supply. Dulles Airport meets this criterion. That still does not mean it was a good idea to build it when it was built, even if it is heavily used today. The 20 years of underutilization are fixed capital that could have been better spent in some other way.
There are other counter-examples, projects that were expected to fail (by someone, though not by proponents) that exceeded expectations. The Pennsylvania Turnpike comes to mind.
What connects MES projects?
The Strib reports: State gives city new tool to fund streetcars :
“One provision in the state tax bill could have a significant impact on Mayor R.T. Rybak’s dreams of building a streetcar in Minneapolis.
The bill allows the city to dedicate tax revenues from several specific parcels around Minneapolis to help pay for a new streetcar line. The city pushed for the new funding method because, unlike regional transit like light rail, streetcars would be a localized project requiring more municipal investment.
Federal funding is still key to the deal. The city won federal funding to perform an alternatives analysis for a line along Nicollet and Central Aves. — which is almost complete — and city staff are preparing to apply for a TIGER grant to help fund the line itself.
The ‘value capture district’ designated by the state for funding streetcars is similar to tax increment financing. It uses revenues from parcels near the transit line to pay off bonds issued to build it. “
More on value capture.
My way was blocked by a sign signifying nothing. Same site as last fall, at The Commons hotel on Harvard.
Just for the historical record, please find attached a scan of the 1 page / 2 sided brochure that the promoters of the Northern Lights Express distributed at the May 11, 2013 National Train Day event at the Saint Paul Union Depot (in case anyone is unclear on the matter, I do not endorse these claims).
I have a new post @ streets.mn: No Parking and De-Signing Streets :
“Why is the default assumption that we give away scarce public right-of-way for the free storage of private vehicles?”
I was traveling down St. Anthony Boulevard with my then 3 year old daughter. She was learning her alphabet and noted the P on a lot of street signs. Every time she saw it, she shared her observations. “P with a slash through it”, “P with a slash through it”, “P with a slash through it”, “P with a slash through it”, … “P with a slash through it”.
Well, this is one of the joys of parenthood, teaching reading and the alphabet through road signs. But it brings up a relevant policy question:
Why is the default assumption that we give away scarce public right-of-way for the free storage of private vehicles?
That is, the default assumption could be no on-street parking except where permitted, which would result in fewer signs on St. Anthony Boulevard, and more elsewhere.
There are three aspects of this:
Now I know we don’t want large areas of surface parking lots either, and if we have already built roads that are too wide for the purpose of moving vehicles, we might as well use them for storage, they aren’t earning interest doing anything else. But we are not done building and rebuilding roads, why are we building them with the intent of using roadspace for vehicle storage?
Perhaps it should be obvious where parking is permitted (the road is marked as one lane and more than say 15′), and where it is prohibited (freeways, right lanes narrower than 15′). Perhaps we need only sign when parking restrictions differ by time of day (no parking in peak hours). Perhaps we can paint the curb instead of putting up ugly signs. Perhaps we can change paving materials.
Certainly there are technological solutions with augmented reality which would overlay virtual signs on the environment, and if we all walk around with Google glasses, or their future equivalent, this might eventually happen. And certainly driverless cars will have a lot of this pre-programmed. But given the time it takes to fully deploy these advanced technologies, we are probably 30 years out before we can remove regulatory signs from our environment wholesale. There should be some intermediate solutions that can help us de-sign our streets.