Read the full article on Technical.ly
Read original article: https://360.here.com/2016/11/14/here-on-street-parking-takes-the-stress-out-of-finding-a-space/
Parking is a headache, make no mistake. Driving around in circles, hoping desperately that a space will open up does no good for you, the environment or other road users, so why isn’t it made easier? Thankfully, HERE On-Street Parking aims to take the stress out of this most stressful of maneuvers. We take a closer look at how it works.
HERE On-Street Parking is a recently-announced service powered by sensor data from multiple car brands– a first for the industry. We spoke with Marc Notenboom, senior product manager at HERE, who helped drive and deliver the new service.
“Usually, parking isn’t a problem if it’s outside work or your house, but in unfamiliar areas you need to search for a space. Here, there are two options – off-street and on-street – the former describes garages or multi-story car parks, which we already include with information on where they are, opening hours and more.”
“On-street parking information is harder to find. We want to provide drivers with details as to where they can park, time restrictions, day restrictions and whether a permit is required. We also want to include information on whether an on-street space is actually available.”
Marc explains that in cities, people looking for parking spaces can not only result in frustration for the driver, but also causes traffic congestion when the driver must go around in circles looking for a space. This also causes pollution and devours fuel, making it a real headache for drivers, pedestrians and the city in which they find themselves.
Now, HERE has launched its on-street parking service, which uses sensors installed in vehicles from multiple car makers to share parking information with the cloud, which is then crunched and sent to the car makers’ fleet. Marc tells us more:
“For on-street parking, there are different types of sensors that send different types of information. The first type of data we’re using indicates when a vehicle is parked, so when the doors are locked and the engine is turned off. Then, the location is sent to the cloud via GPS, informing us that a parking bay is occupied.”
If you get this information from many vehicles on the same street, Marc explains, HERE can decipher parking availability and share it with the fleet.
The future of parking
The first generation of HERE On-Street Parking contains availability information for a whole street segment, which allows the driver to see what parking availability will likely be at the end of a journey, similar to historic traffic patterns which predict the traffic situation at a given moment in time.
Marc adds: “For the actual moment you arrive this information will be based on live data, similar to live traffic, and we will include additional features, like the amount of time you might be waiting for a space and if you are actually allowed to park there. The second generation of the product will be even more detailed as we will be able to provide availability with spot level accuracy.”
How, though, would this work? Marc explains: “The sensors in the vehicle that are used to power automated parking systems are scanning the street while driving by, and can detect where there are open spaces. So, if there is a space without a vehicle, this information is sent to our cloud and can then be shared with other vehicles.”
This leads us onto the development of the autonomous vehicle.
Marc describes his own vision of parking the driverless car, which he says is split into two possibilities: a system of car sharing, where one passenger is dropped off and the vehicle drives itself to the next customer, like a taxi service, or private owned cars which have to park themselves.
Marc says, “When the car needs to park on-street, services which use sensor data, like HERE On-Street Parking, will be very important, as the vehicles will be split into two categories. There will be those that are looking for parking spaces, and those that are scanning and sharing information on the spaces.”
“Sensor data will be required both to scan these spaces, and to park in them.”
Desire for data
The sensor data now made available by the multiple car makers is absolutely vital in ensuring the success and future development of the On-Street Parking service.
With this in mind, Marc explains the importance of others in the industry coming forward and collaborating, sharing their data to drive towards the promised future of the autonomous vehicle.
Marc says, “The key with HERE On-Street Parking is that the more data you have, the better the prediction and the service will become. We’re not only using sensor data, we’re also using information from mobile payment operators who share information on the timeslots where parking is charged, and car-sharing programmes.”
Marc concludes: “We’re always looking for more people to collaborate with, as the more we do that, the better this product will be.”
Thoughts for Developing Technology-Based Problem Solution Options
Derived from the Challenge Teams discussions of the
MCEDC-TEDCO-NIST-MWCOG Smart Cities Workshop
November 17, 2017
Held September 12, 2017 at the
NIST Gaithersburg, MD Campus
Sarah Miller, MCEDC
Ronald Kaese, TEDCO
Jack Pevenstein, NIST
Lisa Ragain, MWCOG
Anna Wright, (MCEDC Graduate Intern), University of Wisconsin
Claudia Elzey, (MCEDC Graduate Intern), University of Pennsylvania
Benjamin Resnick, (NIST Summer Undergraduate Fellow), Case Western Reserve University
Presented is a distillation of insights and conclusions reached during a smart cities workshop by six multi-disciplinary teams, each having from 12 to 15 members, which considered approaches to the solution of municipal problems that might involve the application of “smart cities” technology. Teams were established according to six challenge areas including (1) Public Transportation, (2) Public Safety, (3) Health Services, (4) Energy, (5) Water, and (6) Agriculture. Team members were workshop attendees drawn from the communities of the following professionals: (1) Elected and appointed officials and civil servants, (2) Entrepreneurs and small/start-up business owners, (3) Engineers, scientists and policy analysts from Federal laboratories, and (4) Students and faculty from regional colleges and universities. Recognizing the complex nature of developing solutions to municipal problems that may require or lend themselves to the application of technological innovation, the workshop’s overall goal was to develop a roadmap or framework that could be used by multi-disciplinary teams [often established by municipal executives] to address such problems. The workshop strategy simulated the deliberations of multi-disciplinary by organizing attendees into such teams according to the above six challenge areas suggested by the Montgomery County [Maryland] Economic Development Corporation ant the Metropolitan Washington [DC] Council of Governments. The teams, under the guidance of facilitators were allowed approximately five hours for discussion. A secondary objective was to explore methods and terminology for communicating solution strategies across discipline and professional boundaries, especially approaches to communicating the impacts of technology on political, economic, legal and societal aspects of implementing problem solutions.
Based on discussions from the members of the six workshop teams, and considering the complexity of the challenge areas addressed, some interesting “interdisciplinary” insightss have emerged to include the following:
· The vision of municipalities evolving into smart cities is not a single, integrated technological, political or societal goal, and should not be marketed as a single goal.
· Not every municipal problem necessarily has a set of technology-based solution options.
· The market for smart cities technology and the market for technology-based integrated solutions to municipal problems is driven predominantly by the political leadership at the state and local level.
· There does not seem to be a commonly accepted engineering approach to implementing technology to solve municipal problems. Such an approach may never emerge.
· An interdisciplinary “lingua franca,” or common language for defining municipal problems and identifying solutions that may have technological components does not exist. Attempts at creating such a language appear to emerge when multi-disciplinary problem-solving teams are called into existence. This phenomenon was observed in the various workshop teams. The success of this communication seems to depend on the good will and engagement of team members.[A1]
These insights are drawn exclusively from the raw notes and poster sheets used by each team during their discussions, and represent both the discord and eventual harmony that might be achieved when professional from many disciplines are brought together to address a complex problem.
We wish to express our thanks to the many individuals whose advise and support were essential to the event’s success. First to our core planning team of Ms. Sarah Miller of MCEDC and her two graduate student interns, Ms. Anna Wright of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Ms. Claudia Elzey of the University of Pennsylvania, Mr. Ron Kaese of TEDCO, and my summer research fellow, Mr. Ben Resnick, a junior mechanical engineering student at Case Western Reserve University. Next, we wish to thank Ms. Lisa Ragain, Principal Water Planner and Mr. Ben Hampton, Principal Transportation Planner, both of MWCOG for their support in acting as facilitators for the Water and Transportation Challenge Teams. Additionally, thanks to Drs. Chris Greer and Sokwoo Rhee, Director and Deputy Director of NIST’s Smart Cities Program (Engineering Lab) and especially to Sokwoo for his work as the Energy Team facilitator throughout the event. Also, thanks to Dr. Rob Griesbach, Deputy Assistant Administrator, USDA Agricultural Research Service, for his service as a facilitator for the Agriculture Team, and to Dr. Ben Overbey, NIST Coordinator of Emergency Services for his effort as a facilitator on the Public Safety Team. Finally, thanks to Mr. Paul Zielinski, Director of NIST’s Technology Partnerships Office for his encouragement, guidance, good cheer and support for this entire effort.
“Smart Cities” suggests images of ultramodern metropolises where all kinds of problems associated with city living are solved elegantly by the application of sophisticated technology. Urban utopia arrived? Not by a long stretch. Research into the term to prepare for this workshop found that “Smart Cities” means many things to many people depending on their professional duties and academic training. Moreover, many of these meanings are disjointed and simply do not connect easily with one another. Some people see “Smart Cities Solutions” as complete solutions only waiting to be implemented by slow-moving city councils; others perceive them as tools that, although useful, could create costly and unforeseen problems.
The major stakeholders in smart cities are engineers, the business community, and government officials. Engineers are eager to apply systems technology. Vendors are eager to sell specific systems. Elected and appointed city officials want to provide their constituents with the best solution methods to demonstrate economic development and growth. Unfortunately, all too often, visions of problems and societal needs are misunderstood and miscommunicated among individuals who must work together to craft solutions, but who can’t find the right language to do so. This lack of a “Lingua Franca” among interdisciplinary professionals is certainly not new.
Given the need for an interdisciplinary dialogue, NIST assembled a core planning team in May 2017 with the objective of holding an event that would address “smart cities” problems in six challenge areas including (1) Public Transportation, (2) Public Safety, (3) Health Services, (4) Energy, (5) Water and (6) Agriculture. The planned attendees would be drawn from a diverse set of professional communities, some having members with strong technical and analytic backgrounds and others with more qualitative backgrounds. The planning team targeted attendees from four categories: (1) Elected and appointed officials, policy makers and city planners, (2) Entrepreneurs and small/start-up business persons, (3) Federal laboratory engineering and research personnel and (4) the Academic community. Each professional field uses specialized language and methodologies for defining and describing problems. Overcoming these language and methodology gaps was a major goal of the event. By inviting attendees who represented a diverse group of professionals, the planning team sought to begin a conversation toward a holistic conversation on applying smart technology to address municipal problems.
The workshop was structured with a team of approximately twelve individuals including a facilitator for each of the six challenge areas listed above. Each team was also provided with a focus for their discussions about how a problem might be defined and its various dimensions described (See these challenge areas and focuses in the following table):
Challenge Area Teams
First- and last-mile connectivity
Sensing and preventing crime events
Monitoring, controlling and mitigating the opioid crisis
Tracking and regulating building energy use
Meeting federal storm water management standards (MS4)
Nutrient and pesticide management
Each team was charged with discussing its assigned problem focus and developing a “roadmap” or methodology for defining and describing some problem covered under the focus that might lend itself to a solution, which integrates technology or some technological components. A central aspect of developing these roadmaps was to develop (1) common language, (2) plain terminology, and (3) a method of delivery that could be used to communicate solution requirements to professionals across disciplines who might be involved with producing and implementing such solutions. The results documented in these proceedings are drawn from the notes and charts supplied by each team’s facilitators following the conclusion of the workshop.
What does the term “Smart Cities” mean? It means many things to many people.
Every workshop challenge team wrestled with the meaning of the term “Smart Cities” as a prelude to any discussion of smart cities problems. The complex discussions over the semantics of smart cities led to the first key conclusion of the workshop: as municipal project teams begin to use the term “smart cities” to define their problems, they must be explicit in their meaning of the term as it relates to the project and to their constituency.[A2] At the workshop, teams created and worked through two broad definitions of “Smart Cities.”
The first main definition developed by the workshop teams centered on city-dwellers and their elected and appointed leaders addressing municipal problems through the skillful application of state-of-the-art technology. Team members agreed that the goal of applying smart cities technology is to significantly improve the quality of life for residents. In this context, smart technology referred to technology which improved capabilities for sensing events, and technology that enabled data collection. Both sensing events and data collection could then be analyzed to inform decisions about the management of scarce resources and the reduction of risks to life and property. Regardless of their professional disciplines, all workshop participants recognized an important caveat that increased data collection and analysis alone does not make for a smart city. Collection of the appropriate data for decision-making is as important as the quantity collected.
Other workshop participants provided an alternative concept of smart cities: municipalities where elected officials, their appointed staffs and the supporting bureaucracy make policy and decisions objectively, and where both policy and decisions are somewhat if not entirely isolated from political issues. With the emergence of enhanced data collection and processing technology, the academic notion of bringing rational, data-driven decision making to city administration appears intoxicatingly close to realization. Unfortunately, as our workshop teams recognized, only a small select set of decisions lend themselves to being data-driven. So, the vision of smart cities must integrate increased capabilities for data collection and analysis with the local political and cultural issues that drive policy and decision-making activities. This insight leads to the complicated question of determining the value of the smart cities concept, and to whom this value has meaning.
The structure of this workshop, by its very nature, as well as their discussions, shows that what may be considered a smart city by those public officials concerned with public transportation may have little relevance to those concerned with the availability of health services, water quality or agriculture. What constitutes a vision of a smart city is dependent on the unique requirements of the challenge area to which problem solutions are applied. Moreover, problem solutions that rely on sophisticated, elegant technology in one challenge area for a city may not be appropriate or even implementable in another city. Problem solvers should be cautioned that the vision of a smart cities solution to a municipal problem may be seen by some as inherently better than a solution without. In other words, it is vital to understand that solutions are not inherently better because they incorporate technology or include an abstract buzzword like smart cities.
Thus, we are led to the first conclusion coming out of the workshop. Before defining and describing a “municipal” problem in terms of a smart cities solution, a project team must first decide what the term “smart cities” means to them and to the constituents they represent.[A3] They must answer the question if the notion of a smart cities solution relying on technology even appropriate to the problem as it is widely understood by constituents and stakeholders.
What are the dimensions of a smart cities problem solution? This is highly dependent on who “owns the problem and solution.
While the use of options drawn from information and communications technology most certainly is a significant part of a smart cities problem solution, our challenge teams recognized early in their discussions that certain conditions had to be in place to accommodate technological solution options. These conditions reflect the dimensions of the environment within which any problem solution must be implemented. The dimensions identified in the workshop are summarized as follows (order presented is not significant):
1. Government and Bureaucratic Conditions
· Governmental organization and bureaucratic infrastructure and legislative institutions
· Legal and regulatory constraints; pertinent relationships among Federal, state and local institutions
2. Economic and Market Conditions
· Economic, commercial and financial resources
· Market availability of relevant technology and engineering capability
3. Government, Community and Constituency Conditions
· Municipal culture and societal traditions
· Tolerance for change in addressing municipal problems; applicable time horizons for solution implementation
· Stakeholder community owning or impacted by municipal problem
· Relevant historical contexts
· Where does the mandate to address the problem reside; coalition(s) required to address the problem[A4]
4. Infrastructure Conditions
· Quantitative data model(s) required to manage/control the problem; availability of such data
· Relevant physical infrastructures impacted by/impacting the problem, e.g., utilities, land use, demographic distribution, distribution of residential versus public and commercial buildings, transportation, communications
Whose problem is it, anyway? The challenge of defining and describing the problem belongs to whomever is responsible for solving it. This will vary from municipality to municipality and depend upon the urgency of implementing a solution.
Unfortunately, even when smart cities technology can improve a municipal problem, many problem definitions fail to frame the issue in a way that highlights how smart technology can have an impact. As pointed out in several challenge team discussions, problem definitions depend on the individuals doing the defining and on how they perceive the needs of their constituencies. Also, the general acceptance of these definitions as the authoritative word often depend on how loudly and aggressively they are promoted and how well they are understood by various stakeholder communities. Thus, as might be expected, many municipal problem definitions begin as political positions advanced by elected officials and candidates, whose messages must reach voters. Consider for example the discussions of the Health Services team, which addressed the “opioid addiction crisis” as problem that could be helped by a variety of technological approaches—the appeal to smart cities technology. Observe the nuances involved in problem definition and possible solution approaches depending on the definers in the following matrix:
Commonly-Understood “Nominal” Problem
· Pharma industry
· Professional best practices
· Elect me; keep me in office
· Let’s apply some IT somewhere
Planners & Policy Analysts
· Patient demand
· Physician response to patient & families
· Public services
· Commerce and the economy
· Regulation & executive action
· Efficient allocation of public safety resources
Engineers & technologists
· Patient demand
· Physician response to patient & families
· Public services
· Commerce and the economy
· Improved patient monitoring
· Early detection of high-risk individuals
· Improved monitoring of prescription activity
· Pre-emptive enforcement based on data collection and analysis
Citizens advocacy activists, organizations
· Pharma industry
· Elected officials
· Regulatory agencies
· Professional best practices
· Community pressure on elected officials
To be sure, the above matrix is not meant to be exhaustive; it is meant to demonstrate that problem definitions and descriptions are heavily dependent on the frames of reference and professional “idiosyncratic” terminology brought to the definition effort by team members. This was driven home throughout the workshop. Moreover, the lack of a commonly understood interdisciplinary language for communicating definitional nuances appeared to take up a lot of time during the discussions among team members. It is interesting to note that absent any hidden agendas or advocated positions by challenge team members, there appeared to be a strong collective desire to understand unique terminology and professional viewpoints across the various disciplinary boundaries that were represented on each team. This spirit of interdisciplinary collaboration might not necessarily be present in actual situations where such teams may be called to action in real-world situations.
What are the legal and regulatory issues with the adoption of smart cities technology? In effect, these issues will often set the overall constraints on identifying solution options and implementing them. They may conflict with issues of technical efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
Any solutions proposed for municipal problems will always have a strong dimension involving what is allowed by law and regulation. This involves legal and regulatory issues at the Federal, state and local levels. These issues are especially important when data collection, analysis, storage and access and use by public officials are involved. Moreover, since this data is sometimes provided to contractors working for government agencies, legal issues of privacy and security become complicated. Interestingly, this is one area often overlooked by engineers and technologists proposing technology-based problem solutions, and if considered at all, is often incorporated as an afterthought.
Although there was no way to address all the legal and regulatory issues relating to the implementation of technology-based municipal problem solutions during the workshop, team discussions brought up the following points that must be part of any smart cities solution planning:
· Individual security and privacy.
· Public liability for safeguarding sensitive personal identity, financial and medical information.
· Personal liability of public officials and civil servants for failures of smart cities technology.
· Liability of smart cities technology vendors.
· Protection of constitutional rights, e.g., freedoms of speech, firearms ownership, due process of law.
· Line between enhanced public safety and individual liberty.
· Negotiation of legal and regulatory conflicts between Federal, state and local governmental entities; issues of governmental sovereignty.
· Legal review of municipal problem solutions, especially those involving data collection, storage, analysis and executive use of generated information; legal input during problem definition and review of solution options.
· Common terminology/common understanding for communication among legal, technical, policy and elected professionals; especially important when communicating to legal counsel representing clients during discussions that may quickly evolve into advocacy situations.
What are the economic and financial constraints? No matter how elegant or intoxicating a technological solution appears, if there’s no money to pay for it or maintain it over time, it’s a non-starter.
Obviously, planners must be aware of financial constraints in considering the adoption of any technology as a component of a municipal problem solution; however, this is a more complex and convoluted issue than simply stating that some amount of money is available or that some stream of annual appropriations may be available to support a solution strategy. Our challenge team members were sufficiently sophisticated to be aware that budgets for technology-based solutions are very often impacted by constraints that have little to do with technical efficiencies or resource allocation strategies, or other issues with which engineers and policy planners are normally occupied. Multi-disciplinary problem-solving teams like the ones we modelled in the workshop challenge teams must possess a background understanding of the tolerance of their constituents for spending money on technology-based problem solutions that in a short time may no longer be supported by political leaders who might be elected to office based on drastic cost cutting. Apart from short term politics, problem solving teams must assess the longer capability and willingness of a municipality to maintain and upgrade technology-based solutions as required. Even seemingly simply technology has a way of rapidly becoming obsolete in the face of city growth and evolution and creates its own unique problems that demand the commitment of unforeseen financial resources. Pertinent considerations noted in workshop discussions included:
· Willingness of constituent residents to spend funds on technologically based problem solutions. This can be tied to such things as the willingness of constituents to spend money on the latest technology for themselves, which in turn can be tied to household affluence and even level of education.
· Expected changes in the regional economy, i.e., is it expected to grow and become more affluent or is it expected to shrink.
· What are the perceived priorities for tax dollars, at present and for the foreseeable future?
· Are Federal and/or state funds available to municipalities; is such availability sustained or a one-off situation?
· How are problem solving teams to integrate financial constraints into problem-solving options involving the integration of technology?
· To what extent is it appropriate for problem solving teams to advocate for solution options given the uncertainty of financial resources to support such options.
· Can solution options be prepared and recommended as “financially agnostic”?
Who decides when the problem has been solved? Identify stakeholders, decision makers, constituents and their interactions and relationships. Do these change in importance over time?
Our challenge teams found that although it was easy to identify problem stakeholders, decision makers, and constituents, it was more of a challenge identifying their interactions among each other. Moreover, within each group, there were obviously many competing vested interests; so many so that there seemed to be little homogeneity, and little agreement on priorities for problem solutions. An interesting point made during the discussions of several teams was to recognize the possibilities for creating ad hoc coalitions among different stakeholders to address problems and agree on the desirability of adopting appropriate technologies to create solution strategies.
Identification and adoption of “appropriate” technology to support smart cities solutions. Appropriate technology means technology that can easily be applied to help solve a municipal problem and is compatible with economic, financial, legal/regulatory, and administrative constraints faced by municipality.
Innovative technology can be intoxicating, entertaining and satisfying to those tasked with finding solutions to complicated problems, especially those complex, multidimensional problems faced by municipal governments. Why is this so? NIST’s “Inventor-par-excellence,” Dr. Jack Rabinow points out that an invention is like the punchline of a joke—completely logical and completely unexpected, and therefore has a shining, amazing brilliance to it. To those in search of a problem solution, a relevant invention may be the answer. However, our challenge team members were shrewd enough to realize that not every municipal problem has a complete technological solution, and that a problem faced by one city many not lend itself to the same technology-based solution when that same problem emerges in another city. So, we invoke the term “appropriate” technology.
Appropriate technology relative to the search for problem solution options simply means a technology-based solution component that addresses the problem in its local context and can be easily integrated into a city’s culture and administrative machinery. Appropriate technology also means systems that are acceptable to the public and can be supported both financially and technically over relatively long periods of time. The quality of a technology’s appropriateness in terms of its support by a city’s management can be especially problematic. The adoption of any technological component of a problem solution may lock a city into a specific evolutionary pathway, which may be difficult to abandon as the need may arise at some future time. A specific technology may limit problem-solving a city management’s flexibility in the future as issues evolve.
While the idea of appropriate technology is not meant to bias problem solvers against technology-based or technology-supported municipal problem solutions, it is a reminder that discussions of solution options between non-technically-oriented municipal leaders and the engineering community must include critical thinking about where technology-based solutions can lead.
Where does smart cities planning go from here? Are there “workshop take-aways”?
Based on the wide-ranging threads of discussion from the members of the six workshop challenge teams, and considering the complexity of the challenge areas addressed by the team members, some interesting “interdisciplinary” notions have emerged. Consider the following:
· The vision of municipalities evolving into smart cities is not a single, integrated technological, political or societal goal, and should probably not be marketed as a single goal.
· Not every municipal problem necessarily has a set of solution options that are technology-based at any given time.
· The market for smart cities technology and the market for technology-based integrated solutions to municipal problems is driven predominantly by the political leadership at the state and local level.
· At present, there does not seem to be a commonly accepted, unified, integrated engineering approach to implementing technology to solve municipal problems. Such an engineering approach may never emerge.
· At present, an interdisciplinary “lingua franca,” or common language for defining municipal problems and identifying solutions that may have technological components does not exist. Attempts at creating such a language appear to emerge when multi-disciplinary problem-solving teams are called into existence and tasked with exploring solution options for the first time. To a certain extent, this phenomenon was observed in the various workshop teams. The success of this communication seems to depend on the good will and engagement of team members.[A5]
Certainly, the workshop participants chose to “bite off” a large amount to chew over, not to mention digest. Perhaps one might criticize the effort as a fool’s task addressing so many challenge areas, focuses, and diverse professions. Yet, by all accounts, most attendees were enthusiastic about the results. Many expressed the desire to keep the effort going. Whether we can do this or not remains to be see.
Opportunities for Innovation in Addressing the Application of Smart Cities Technology
The workshop discussions among the six challenge teams suggested that the dynamics of interdisciplinary problem-solving activities may drive and even accelerate innovative approaches to the implementation of smart cities technology. How is this so? Consider the following argument.
Smart cities technologies represent many different technology bases, which although interrelated, have their own best practices in terms of application to problem solutions. Innovative approaches to implementing these technologies in problem solving often involve deviations from established best practices. Such deviations carry risks for the engineers who act as innovators as well as for elected officials, policy makers and corporation counsels who must approve the purchase of problem solving technology. So, best engineering practices with respect to implementing smart cities solutions sometimes tends to act as a barrier to innovation when viewed considering risk management. The workshop’s interdisciplinary teams were observed to explore many more options for implementing smart cities technology in support of problem solving than might be the case if, for example, just engineers deliberated. The more options explored, the more likely innovations would emerge. Also, there seems to be a “dynamic” interaction among multi-disciplinary teams that enhances the attractiveness of innovative thought. Perhaps this interaction not only allows greater intellectual exploration of options, but also helps to absorb or manage the perception of risk associated with deviations from accepted practices relating to technology implementation.
 Montgomery County Economic Development Corporation (MCEDC)
 Maryland Technology Development Corporation (TEDCO)
 National Institute of Standards and Technology, US Department of Commerce (NIST)
 Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG)
 Jacob Rabinow, Inventing for Fun and Profit, San Francisco Press, Inc., 1990, p. 245
[A1]Even if it’s redundant, I think it would be very useful to add an executive summary at the beginning of the report that briefly outlines the content of the report (so, sketch of the workshop) and identifies these takeaways.
[A2]I would suggest adding the finding of each heading at the beginning and end of the section to provide the reader with a “roadmap,” as I did here with this sentence.
[A3]This is good, and worth repeating at the beginning of the section.
[A4]Is this more a government or a community conditions question?
[A5]Even if it’s redundant, I think it would be very useful to add an executive summary at the beginning of the report that briefly outlines the content of the report (so, sketch of the workshop) and identifies these takeaways.
Roadi was founded on the notion that parking is a pervasive problem that affects almost everyone who drives and all who drive in metropolitan areas.
A recent article about Tesla, the innovative electric car company, proves that even those in the business of making transportation vehicles are affected by the problem. Call it the detective's curse, but sometimes those close to the problem fail to find a solution. At Roadi we exist to solve this problem, and have utilized technology to create a solution that is accurate and intuitive. The article can be found here:
Through our research done at the University of Baltimore by the founders of Roadi, we discovered that drivers spend as much as 40 minutes to find parking and more than 10 minutes on average. This otherwise menial task is taking up too much of our valuable time.
In the case of Tesla, we are talking about a parking problem at a scale of around 6,000 drivers. Now just imagine this problem scaled up to a city population or a country. When we start to talk about hundreds of thousands of people, we are talking about a migraine problem rather than a headache problem.
At Roadi, we solve migraine problems, by providing drivers a new option to finding an available parking space that is right for them at the time they need it most. Roadi highlights the streets that are likely to have a vacant parking space, you will be seeing the most up to date recommendations, every minute, up to the minute. No reservation or payment needed to search for where an available parking space is.
This is done through continuously recording thousands of parking activities in real time to track occupancy trends and direct driver to the best place to find a vacant parking space nearby. You can also choose the parking garage option to find nearby garages.
The next time you are searching for parking nearby or the nearest parking garage in NYC, Baltimore, or Miami you can use Roadi to see if there are any recommendations for free parking nearby. The more users in your area the more information you can see about where the best places are to find parking. To find parking is a challenging whether it is a company parking lot, street parking near the train or at your favorite annual event. By monitoring local parking activity, Roadi is able to provide reliable information about where you can find free parking nearby. An analysis of parking around the Yankee stadium and Atlantic yards shows that civil engineering has designed for there to be sufficient parking throughout the year. However, from a drivers perspective, there is an expectation for more parking availability or more parking closer to the desired destination. Part of the disconnect in expectation is a lack of information about parking trends for the driver. Driver's are only able to see to the end of the block, therefore a driver is not aware of vacant or soon to be vacant parking nearby.
The application tracks your recent parking locations so you can go straight to that great parking spot you found before! Also, you can always track where you've parked your car before
With the Roadi parking app a driver can see notifications of drivers leaving a parking space, sometimes even before they have pulled out. Roadi is a social transportation platform that provides the best local parking data, and real-time activity. Roadi also shows you the nearest parking garage near your location. The personal experience gets to know you with continued use. As more people in your area use Roadi you will have access to an ever-increasing resource to see real-time parking vacancies.
If there are no real time departures at the moment, its ok because the streets highlighted with blue lines suggest where you are likely to find an available parking space so you won't need to continuously circle the city blocks.
Whats to come?
Find all the free parking nearby. Roadi will begin showing where the free non paid space will be. Use Roadi as often as you need to find parking, keep checking back and sharing so that we can make parking easier for ourselves.
At Roadi we aim to help you find parking nearby. We do this by saving your best parking spaces, allowing you to see when another user is leaving and provide access to a database of the best streets to find parking from monitoring over 25,000 parking arrivals and departures, all of which makes your day better one space at a time. Roadi introduces a new way of finding an open parking space right at the moment you need it. We combine scientific research, passive crowdsourcing, and machine learning to provide predictive analysis of an available space with as high as 99% accuracy.
Off-street parking is only a portion of the larger problem. Roadi currently offers a solution to on-street parking in real-time in addition to our off-street solutions. If we focused solely on garage solutions, we would be limited in what we can provide our users. Providing only garage parking solutions has two major drawbacks: there will always be a fee you must pay and there is no guarantee the garage is the closest parking option to your destination.
After listening to the parking community, we found that the most value could be achieved by solving the on-street parking problem and supplementing that with off-street solutions. We partner with local Baltimore businesses to provide an on-street parking solution that adds value to their customers. We provide a personalized parking experience for each user, that allows them to track their parking history and compare that with the parking patterns of the community as a whole. We provide a comprehensive solution to parking that gives our users the best options available to solve their problem.
Parking is a community problem, for which we feel the best answer is a community solution. Roadi provides parking when it matters.
Help your visitors find parking nearby. Add this link to your parking page and send the user to the best app to find street parking nearby.
COPY AND PASTE THIS LINK TO YOUR WEBSITE:
<a href="https://u269f.app.goo.gl/iNhr" rel="nofollow"><img src=https://static1.squarespace.com/static/570beab08259b57a9ebc243b/t/59fd2588652dea4f72c84362/1509762459994/Get+Roadi+%282.png?format=500w /></a>