Five factors were taking into account to find the ideal location for public parking: distance from travel absorption centers (such as malls, administration buildings, historical sites and other frequented locations), access to roads, proximity to public transport, price of land, and limiting factors (such as zoning and proximity to spaces that inhibit construction). The researchers then weighed the factors to show importance based on the opinions of experts. After analyzing the data, a map was developed with favorable areas shown with the highest value, along with existing parking lots and limiting factors.
Researchers found that the most suitable land was often near subways and that most existing parking lots were not in the most preferred areas. It was suggested that in the future, civil engineers should consult data before building parking lots to find the most efficient and convenient locations.
Source:
Iman Ghiasi, et al. "Developing Optimal Zones For Urban Parking Spaces By Arc GIS And AHP." Indian Journal Of Science & Technology 5.11 (2012): 3618-3622. Academic Search Complete. Web. 18 Feb. 2013.
This is a neat application of GIS to urban planning! Traffic congestion is such an issue in urban areas, with an increase in pollution (both air and noise), and huge effect on livability in a city. I think adding parking lots is an interesting way to get some of those cars off the road. Half the time I'm driving in inner-city Austin, I'm searching for somewhere to park (last time, we literally searched for 30 minutes), which burns more gas and just causes more congestion. I wonder what is currently set up in what the researchers determined to be the most valuable areas for parking lots, and if these areas are going to be converted. Parking lots are obviously important, but so are green spaces and low-income housing, both of which may appear to be less valuable than parking lots to urban planners. I just wonder how this information will be used in the future and certainly hope for the best, but think the data it could be twisted, like any other map, I suppose, to appease certain segments of the population while harming other, less affluent, segments.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think parking is an issue that contributes to high volumes of traffic in cities, as to constructing more parking lots and garages, I think we need to expand our roads and highways. Cities such as Austin are becoming over populated and are definitely past its intended population capacity; because the City of Austin cannot make it a law that bans more people moving to Austin I think Austin needs to take other options and expand. We need either more highways or more lanes added to our current highways, or both. A problem with this idea is that if you are familiar with Austin you'll know that there really isn't much land for us to expand our highways on. As of now, I see the traffic problem and the issues that come along with it only getting worse.
ReplyDeleteI don't know much about the situation, but I'm fairly sure that Austin doesn't need more highways, but has a serious infrastructure problem. (Someone told me it has 2 of the 10 worst infrastructure problems in the US!). I think that more highways would add to the confusion, pollution, and terrible traffic either way, and we really need innovation.
DeleteUrban planning is extremely complicated and takes place years prior to the actual build time. Austin should have expanded its roads and invested in public transportation fourty years ago, so it would be at least as organized as the bigger Texas cities by now. The Austin part of I-35 is the most dangerous stretch of all of I-35.
ReplyDelete