How far will people walk from parking space to destination?

[Dave Brough]

One of the most asked questions in any parking parking process is how far can we expect people to walk from a parking space to their ultimate destinations? While most parking consultants will tell you there are generally accepted rules of thump, no two consultants answer in quite the same way. The primary cause for lack of consensus is that there are different factors that affect different situations -- for instance, parking designers usually call for maximum walking distances between 300 and 600 feet for retail customers, but between 1,200 and 1,500 feet for employee parking, distance increase even more when you look at special events stadiums: maximum walking distances accepted for theme parks stadiums and areas reach as high as 2,000 feet.

Story...http://www.walkerparking.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Smith-Butcher-How-Far-Should-You-Walk-May-2008.pdf

Question: Where does dual mode and PRT fit into that equation?

Dave Brough

[jbs]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Dave Brough wrote:

>
> [walking2.JPG]

Equation? I don't see one. Leaves out important factors like rain, snow, heat, cold, safety, security, day, night, weekday, weekend, stairs, elevators, signage, attractiveness of destination, time of day, age, mobility level, vision, alone or with others, carrying children and so on.


> Dave Brough
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>

[Eph]

I go with 1300 feet (400 m) MAX. and so 650 feet average for my PRT designs.  PRT doesn't have to serve the lowest common denominator the same way a parking lot does.


F.

[Dave Brough]

F.

 Given that people will walk in direct proportion to the obstacles - like you named, weather, security, age, etc. - just wondering if you've come up with any conceptualizations on how your version of mobility would fit into 'the equation', say, for a major mall or theme park.

Dave Brough

​F

 wrote:

[Richard Gronning]

Dave, Jerry S, et al,

I like this discussion. I like the defining of parameters. If I were to add to The list and define the parameters a bit further, I would start with the proportion of riders compared to the cost for doing so. I think that it can be formulated.

In the beginning, there was Ed Anderson. Ed had read some studies that concluded that people would walk 1/4 mile, (~1,300') to access transit. Therefore, his stations were 1/2 mile apart. This would stand in opposition to transit authorities that had concluded that LRT stations could be 1 mile apart, giving a max walking distance of 1/2 mile. Interesting that the 1/4 mile is practically the same as the paper Dave read about the walk that employees might take.

I like to dream, to visualize. I try to envision what the various conditions that are presented below and what might be the results. Since I live in Minnesota and we have snow, I'll start there. If there is a snow storm with deep snow, could people even get their cars out of their drives? And, how accessible are the roads to get to work? What would be the time delays? Could the snow prevent people from walking to a station? Or, could people see themselves slogging through the snow to a station 1/4 mile or less (Can I conclude that, with a station with a max distance of 1/4 mile, that the average distance would be 1/8 mile? 3 blocks?) away because the overhead transit would work flawlessly in such a condition? In other words, could the conditions offset each other?

Dave has stated on a number of occasions that origin-to-destination isn't there with PRT. Again, Dave isn't looking at cost trade-offs or existing modes. Cars aren't origin-to-destination either. We have cars in garages or car ports accessible from a back door or side door, but we walk or are transported on the other end to work or to shopping. What is the cost trade-off between complete door-to-door trip and a walk at one end (cars) or the other(PRT)? The PRT would just reverse the ends of where the walk or transportation might be.

Instead of a complete DM system, is Fred Payne's idea of autonomous golf carts for accessing PRT stations in residential and suburban situations enough of a cost off-set to warrant PRT over DM? (I don't have an answer, but I believe that thee major factor is the cost as compared to ridership. (Will people use the system as proposed?)

Will retailers, stadium owners, airports and other destination owners see an increase in business with their destinations easier to access with DM or PRT? And, could they cough up some of the increased profits for a better transit?

Oh-oh! I haven't included the average 6 month trip in the F-150 for plywood. Maynard's rents a pick-up for $18/hr.

Dick

On 10/15/2014 12:10 PM, jbs wrote:

[Eph]

Dave,
Jerry S. brought up the equation vs table for ridership/design parameters.

I assume you mean access to a mall or theme park?  If so, I would think it up to these businesses to assess whether a branch line and station on premises would attract enough business to offset costs.  Parking requirements (and costs) may be reduced with a PRT station on premises.

As for weather, if it's raining, some will grab an umbrella or rain coat, others may choose other means (if available) such as car or taxi.

The snowstorm is an interesting point.  Do you want to clear off your car and shovel your driveway or walk through snow to a nearby station?  Do you want to wait for an overbooked taxi?  Do you want to creep along in your car through snowy streets and risk being stopped by an accident blocking the way or use an operating PRT system?  I suspect ridership might increase in these circumstances!


F.

[jbs]

>
> On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:30:35 PM UTC-4, Dave Brough wrote:
>
>  Given that people will walk in direct proportion to the obstacles - like you named, weather, security, age, etc. - just wondering if you've come up with any
> conceptualizations on how your version of mobility would fit into 'the equation', say, for a major mall or theme park.

One approach would be to use "disutility units" to describe the barriers encountered during the average walk by the average person (or by category). Total disutility units would enable one to figure out their total effect. If the figure is too high, back to the drawing boards. This is what transportation planners do routinely when forecasting O/D traffic patterns. Lots of assumptions and averaging. Too complicated for most people except when the cost of the facility is in the millions or billions and you don't want it to be a failure.
---------------------------------------------

[Jerry Roane]

Jerry

I agree the disutility approach would be a good exercise for any system that requires more than the least effort way to get where people might want to wish to go.  

When I have sat down for the evening it takes a lot of enticement to get me back up.  Earlier in the day it is easy to get me up from my seat.  Same for the carrot end of the possible trip.  If it is a hassle to go wait at a pizza place to get fed what might have become a trip (induced travel) the whole trip for two could be lost to a transportation system.  Disutility is a way to capture this part of trip creation.  If I have to walk down hill that is different disutility for climbing up hill and because the return trip is required where the out trip is in question it matters whether the pizza parlor is higher elevation than the house for the walking mode.  

Disutility would apply to systems that weren't 100% automated and only required the work of an index finger on a smart phone or less.  Travel is not as simple as go to work go home and if anyone wants to model travel it better be fairly sophisticated or don't bother.  A strongly held wrong answer is worse than no answer at all but held on to lightly.  Knowing you might be wrong is valuable too.  Induced travel is the most important part of a predictive model attempt.  I believe (but can be wrong) that with fast, clean, vibration free, cheap travel that people will swap the TV remote for life remote (so to speak) and move more than they do now.  That means more travel which in my over-capacity vision would be all good.  The public gets richer lives and I make more money.  Pretty good trade.  Disutilities are all about trades and instant decisions about travel.  Once you remove sin from travel it can grow and still be a good thing.  If travel demand grows in a CBD that is today a horrible sin and very bad.

Jerry Roane 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.