Drivers spend 30 Billion hours per year searching for parking spots

Imagine this: every year, drivers around the globe spend a staggering 30 billion hours just searching for parking spots. That’s not just time lost; it’s a massive drain on productivity, fuel, and our collective sanity. In bustling cities, the quest for parking can feel like a never-ending maze, contributing to traffic congestion and environmental pollution.

But what if we could reclaim these lost hours? This is where Space steps in. Our innovative platform transforms the daunting task of finding parking into a seamless experience. By connecting drivers with available parking spots in real-time, Space not only saves precious time but also significantly reduces the carbon footprint associated with circling streets in search of a space.

The implications are far-reaching: less time spent parking means more time for what truly matters, whether that’s extra minutes with family, focusing on work, or simply enjoying a moment of peace. Moreover, by optimizing the use of existing parking spaces, we’re working towards a future where cities are less congested, more sustainable, and more livable.

It’s time to rethink urban mobility. Let’s turn those lost hours into moments of opportunity. #SmartParkingSolutions #UrbanMobilityRevolution #SustainableCities #ReclaimYourTime #SpaceParkingApp

more posts

Rethinking Parking as a Public Good and How Can We Move Forward? | Smart City Memphis

Rethinking Parking as a Public Good and How Can We Move Forward? This post was originally published in Planetizen March 4, 2024, and it is posted here with its permission. Planetizen is a platform that creates, curates, and amplifies stories and resources to inform planning and people passionate about planning. In light of frequent discussions in our community about parking, walkability, and livability, I am posting it here: By David Mepham We tend to view parking from the driver’s seat. This is a “me, here, now” view that is as narrow as it is self-interested. It is a view that has shaped a century of urban parking and that locates parking access as the key to urban access/mobility. That view can be contrasted with a broader urban planning perspective where parking shapes every element of our urban environment and impacts almost every urban policy outcome — with some benefits but also, undoubtedly, with detrimental impacts and costs to the destination’s place/access experience. The narrative that parking is a “public good” is central to the provision of public subsidies to offset the real cost of parking. In my recent book Rethinking Parking: Planning and Urban Design Perspectives, I looked beyond the driver’s seat to understand the critical impact of parking on the destination via five perspectives: place, politics, policy, pricing, and professional practice. This 5P toolbox provides an insight into parking, including a deeply entrenched sense of entitlement to cheap, easy parking; the idea that parking is a public good; and, related to parking as a public good, the tendency to subsidize public parking. Parking subsidies are typically defined as direct financial offsets that make parking free or cheaper, but they also include indirect costs including social, environmental, and economic impacts on urban places. The justification for subsidizing these costs relies on an argument that parking is a public good. However, a public good is “non-excludable” and “non-rivalrous” and benefits all or most members of a community. For example, public parks and gardens are a public good because they are accessible to all and can be enjoyed by one without excluding another. When a parking lot is occupied, however, others are excluded from accessing that space. Beyond the many direct and indirect costs and subsidies and their vague rationale is less mobility choice and a diminished place/access experience. The 5P perspectives bring the urban parking/place problem into focus and flag a pathway for meaningful reform. Place Cheap, easy parking can provide easy driver access to places that may not be worth visiting. Parking takes up significant space in urban centers in the form of public and private parking garages and lots. They may be paid or unpaid, short or longer term, at grade or above- or belowground. It may be, and often is, cross-subsidized at the expense of mobility choice and an inclusive place/access experience on the grounds of parking as a public good. Each car parking solution creates its own impacts. Parking can degrade the place and street aesthetic and erode active, engaging street edges. Pedestrians, cyclists, transit, and key services are all delayed in the center because of parking traffic. There are right-of-way conflicts that impact pedestrians, especially where vehicles access and egress parking across the sidewalk. There are environmental costs in the form of less green space and more heated surfaces. There is increased noise and air pollution. Social costs include decreased health, safety, and ease of walk and roll access. There are even economic costs,with decreased density impacting the level of activity, as well as inefficiencies and inequities where mandated parking conditions add unnecessary costs to housing and development. A key space for parking is the high-access and high-value main street curb. This has historically been a contested public space that accommodates a variety of public and private functions. In the century of the car, these other functions have been banned from the curb to accommodate driver entitlement to affordable and available parking. The view from the driver’s seat reads this as an entitlement to “cheap, easy” parking. Ironically, no rational market provides cheap and easy; the laws of supply and demand ensure that you can have one or the other. The argument for cheap, easy parking relies on a view of the curb as an extension of the road with its legal right-of-way. It overlooks the historical role of the curb as a valuable public space with its many uses. That value, be it economic, environmental, or social, is owned by the community. Giving up the curb or other public space for parking priced at a value below its highest and best use represents a subsidy. Subsidies can be used to advance certain outcomes, but as they impose a cost on the community, they must be argued to be a public good. That argument raises values and beliefs and issues of politics and policy. Politics Parking is intensely emotional, and discussions about parking can easily escalate into intense arguments and worse. Contested parking spaces become battlegrounds between otherwise polite people. Our territorial instinct is pricked and the angry amygdala runs roughshod over our quietly rational prefrontal cortex. The results can often be unpleasant and even deadly. Parking reform has been as politically egregious as it is essential and an arena suited to the crazy and the courageous. The pathway to reform has more often been two steps forward and one step back and has included the need to look back to understand how we got here. Looking backward, we see the early political campaigns for drivers’ exceptional rights; the construction of narratives about the car, driving, and parking as public good the growing influence of transportation and traffic planning; and the demise of the traditional city. There are issues of class, race, and power as poorer, urban communities were demolished for freeways and parking to accommodate suburban drivers. Those who perpetuated and realized these planning outcomes too often resembled the winners in that contest. The politics of parking shaped in the early twentieth century underpin the policies of the early twenty-first century. Policy Viewing parking from the driver’s seat enables us to treat it as a local and urgent problem and to overlook the broader, longer term policy implications. But there are few urban policies unaffected by urban parking policy — from the local to the global. Effective urban policies should work in an enhancing 1+1=3 relationship where the whole is greater than the parts. Given the flawed political and policy drivers that produce “me, here, now” parking outcomes, there is a case for an arm’s length governance model that puts strategic parking policy making and administration above the day-to-day political fray. In the process, we may find that the policy is more equitable and efficient and driven by relevant data and reason. Price The most contested of the parking policies is pricing. A view of parking as a public good has been used to sustain the myth of the “free” parking with the socialization of costs and subsidies onto the broader community. It raises the questions of who pays for “free” parking and why. In recent decades, pricing reform has increasingly been enabled by innovative new parking technologies and the rise of shared mobility economies. Placing in-ground pods into each parking lot real-time and place data to be collected to inform a demand-based price for that space. As parking price adjusts and aligns with the time and place demand, there is also an increase in the availability of parking space. As revenue is collected, there is the opportunity to fund local place/access improvements. Such reforms have fairly and reasonably shifted parking policy into the “user pays” realm, and that tends to prompt a more reasoned decision-making process on “if, where, when” to park. Importantly, it enables parking professionals to act less politically and more rationally. Professional practice Urban parking is as much a land use as it is a transport issue, so we find parking located in the juncture of the transport and land use planning professions. But this simple reality is not reflected in the way that parking policy is made and managed. Dealing with parking in the juncture requires that we step back from our bureaucratic silos to work collaboratively across professional streams to create more appropriate, integrated planning outcomes. It’s time to stop dealing with urban parking as an afterthought and to approach parking policy and practice as a critical bridge between the land use and transport planning professions. Conclusion A view of parking from the driver’s seat has underpinned the century-old “me, here and now” parking narrative. That narrative overlooks the wider social, environmental, and economic impacts of parking policy. This narrow view has been used to justify parking as a public good and to then justify the extensive public subsidies that provide cheap, easy parking to attract drivers to damaged places that are not worth visiting. Looking forward, creating more equitable, efficient, attractive, and successful places requires that we rethink parking. Rational parking policies that tap the potential of smart, new parking technologies and mobility sharing economies can take us to a better place. In the end, we can find that better balance, one that puts parking on tap, not on top. David Mepham is an urban planner and consultant with more than 30 years of experience and passion for attractive, accessible places. His book, Rethinking Parking: Planning and Urban Design Perspectives, was published by Routledge in December 2023. Share: Leave a reply Your email address will not be published.COMMENTName Email Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Latest Bill Day Cartoon by Bill Day. Memphian Bill Day is two-time winner of the RFK Journalism Award in Cartooning. His cartoons are syndicated internationally by Cagle Cartoons. Cartoons Archive → Subscribe to Posts via EmailYou can get Smart City Memphis posts right in your e-mail box. Just sign up below to begin receiving them.Your email: About Smart City Memphis Since 2005, this has been Smart City Consulting’s blog with the aim of connecting the dots and providing perspective on issues and policies shaping Memphis. Editor and primary author is Tom Jones, columnist, author of two books, and consultant on public policy. Smart City Memphis was called one of the most intriguing blogs in the U.S. by the Pew Partnership for Civic Change; The (Memphis) Commercial Appeal wrote that “Smart City Memphis provides some of the most well-thought-out thinking about Memphis’ past, present, and future you’ll find anywhere,” and the Memphis Flyer said: “This incredibly well-written blog sets out to solves the city’s ills – from the mayor to MATA – with out-of-the-box thinking, fresh approaches to old problems, and new ideas. If you have questions, submissions, or ideas for posts, please email Tom Jones, at Archives Select Month March 2024 (7) February 2024 (11) January 2024 (20) December 2023 (10) November 2023 (13) October 2023 (16) September 2023 (12) August 2023 (10) July 2023 (11) June 2023 (11) May 2023 (11) April 2023 (9) March 2023 (11) February 2023 (11) January 2023 (9) December 2022 (9) November 2022 (14) October 2022 (14) September 2022 (10) August 2022 (11) July 2022 (8) June 2022 (10) May 2022 (11) April 2022 (14) March 2022 (14) February 2022 (17) January 2022 (9) December 2021 (3) November 2021 (11) October 2021 (11) September 2021 (13) August 2021 (12) July 2021 (11) June 2021 (12) May 2021 (13) April 2021 (13) March 2021 (13) February 2021 (11) January 2021 (11) December 2020 (13) November 2020 (11) October 2020 (12) September 2020 (13) August 2020 (12) July 2020 (18) June 2020 (18) May 2020 (12) April 2020 (15) March 2020 (11) February 2020 (10) January 2020 (10) December 2019 (12) November 2019 (12) October 2019 (12) September 2019 (11) August 2019 (12) July 2019 (11) June 2019 (12) May 2019 (14) April 2019 (12) March 2019 (13) February 2019 (12) January 2019 (18) December 2018 (9) November 2018 (13) October 2018 (13) September 2018 (12) August 2018 (14) July 2018 (10) June 2018 (10) May 2018 (11) April 2018 (11) March 2018 (12) February 2018 (12) January 2018 (13) December 2017 (9) November 2017 (13) October 2017 (11) September 2017 (12) August 2017 (12) July 2017 (12) June 2017 (12) May 2017 (13) April 2017 (14) March 2017 (13) February 2017 (12) January 2017 (12) December 2016 (9) November 2016 (9) October 2016 (10) September 2016 (11) August 2016 (16) July 2016 (14) June 2016 (16) May 2016 (12) April 2016 (14) March 2016 (15) February 2016 (13) January 2016 (13) December 2015 (13) November 2015 (12) October 2015 (12) September 2015 (13) August 2015 (11) July 2015 (12) June 2015 (13) May 2015 (14) April 2015 (13) March 2015 (16) February 2015 (12) January 2015 (10) December 2014 (11) November 2014 (12) October 2014 (22) September 2014 (19) August 2014 (17) July 2014 (22) June 2014 (13) May 2014 (22) April 2014 (22) March 2014 (31) February 2014 (29) January 2014 (27) December 2013 (20) November 2013 (23) October 2013 (34) September 2013 (22) August 2013 (37) July 2013 (32) June 2013 (34) May 2013 (31) April 2013 (34) March 2013 (27) February 2013 (31) January 2013 (30) December 2012 (29) November 2012 (31) October 2012 (32) September 2012 (29) August 2012 (33) July 2012 (26) June 2012 (33) May 2012 (33) April 2012 (31) March 2012 (37) February 2012 (32) January 2012 (35) December 2011 (29) November 2011 (30) October 2011 (34) September 2011 (33) August 2011 (39) July 2011 (36) June 2011 (41) May 2011 (35) April 2011 (55) March 2011 (38) February 2011 (43) January 2011 (56) December 2010 (43) November 2010 (30) October 2010 (24) September 2010 (23) August 2010 (21) July 2010 (21) June 2010 (31) May 2010 (27) April 2010 (31) March 2010 (34) February 2010 (30) January 2010 (41) December 2009 (46) November 2009 (17) October 2009 (23) September 2009 (23) August 2009 (18) July 2009 (22) June 2009 (28) May 2009 (23) April 2009 (23) March 2009 (26) February 2009 (25) January 2009 (36) December 2008 (15) November 2008 (22) October 2008 (21) September 2008 (25) August 2008 (23) July 2008 (31) June 2008 (27) May 2008 (35) April 2008 (26) March 2008 (25) February 2008 (28) January 2008 (33) December 2007 (20) November 2007 (19) October 2007 (32) September 2007 (25) August 2007 (25) July 2007 (26) June 2007 (16) May 2007 (21) April 2007 (25) March 2007 (18) February 2007 (16) January 2007 (16) December 2006 (16) November 2006 (14) October 2006 (18) September 2006 (21) August 2006 (19) July 2006 (20) June 2006 (17) May 2006 (12) April 2006 (19) March 2006 (19) February 2006 (22) January 2006 (16) December 2005 (23) November 2005 (21) October 2005 (23) September 2005 (19) August 2005 (27) July 2005 (23) June 2005 (16) 0 (2) Categories Select Category Arts and Culture (63) Cartoons (122) City of Memphis Government (587) Civil Rights (99) Criminal Justice (111) Data Points (59) Downtown Revitalization (205) Economic Development (613) Education (187) Federal Government (5) Federal Policy (9) Health (8) Leadership (116) Livability (252) Media (15) Memphis City Schools (69) Neighborhoods (104) Parks and Greening (144) Planning and Urban Design (225) Politics and Government (80) Poverty (168) Regionalism (41) Shelby County government (247) State Government (15) Talent (96) Taxation (195) Tennessee Legislature (53) Tourism (11) Transportation (129) Trends and Issues (153) Uncategorized (2,042)

Read more >

Book a space

Calendar is loading...
Powered by Booking Calendar