If you travel a lot by air you know that the most boring part of the flight is the safety demonstration. They say the same things over and over and most just tune it out.
Delta, however, has taken a different approach. Their video presentations are smart, witty, and hold your interest right up til the end.
When they talk about whether or not you want to sit in an exit row and help with an exit during an emergency, there are three men in the row, twins and a third person. When the third person says “no” he is replaced by a third “twin.” Or in a subsequent video, a weightlifter says ‘no’ and is replaced by a pretty tough grandma.
When you are asked to put your smaller items under the seat in front of you, one person stores a Bonzai tree. When you are told to put away computers, naturally its an original Underwood. Then when you are asked to turn off electronic items, a robot turns itself ‘off’ and a woman clicks off her full size ‘boom box.” Of course at Christmas time, Santa and his elves are everywhere.
One of the most famous people in the older Delta videos has been the flight attendant who warns about smoking, particularly in the rest rooms. She moved into the new one, and waves her accusing finger at a pipe smoker in the next row. When they tell you that the nearest exit might be behind you, the entire plane turns and looks back, just as a poor man comes out of the restroom.
In one series, the people on the video are dressed as if they were in the 1950s, still following all the proper instructions. And of course the flight attendant warning about smoking is still there, but only eight years old.
But the biggest laugh came at the end of one video when the pilot, who had just thanked us for flying Delta, turned around and discovers a parking ticket on the plane’s windshield.
Obviously the folks at Delta are thinking outside the box. Flying is painful enough without having to sit through the FAA required demonstration for the 100th time. Way to go, Delta. Now if you could just get Atlanta to be weather free 365 days a year you would really have something.
Robert sent in this link:
Every so often this topic raises its head and I feel a need to slap it down. The concept is that if we limit the number of parking spaces, either on street or off street, in the central city or in apartment/condo projects, we will by definition limit the number of cars and entice (read that force) people on to public transportation or sidewalks. This will increase the density in the central cities and meet the goals of environmentalists and urban planners.
My position is that these are choices that should be left to individuals and those who are building the projects where the parking spaces would be located. If as we heard at the last NPA show young office workers want to live where they work and be able to walk to entertainment, shopping, and employment from their homes, so be it. It doesn’t sound like we need to legislate this phenomena. We can simply let it happen.
Employers will move their offices to central cities, away from suburban office parks, and meet the needs of their employees. Developers will either build high rises to accommodate these businesses, or develop office parks with housing, shopping, entertainment and office space co-located so they can attract employees who want that type of environment.
Limiting the number of parking spaces by fiat is, it seems to me, overreaching the planner’s mandate. Its a similar issue to requiring a certain number of spaces for a particular type of business. Shouldn’t the business owner be making that decision, not a faceless bureaucracy?
Parking is a resource, but its also a business. And businesses owners, including cities, universities, and airports, need to be able to make their own decisions.
An apartment owner can break out the cost of parking spaces and then charge for parking and reduce the rent for people who elect not to own cars. After all, parking is another expense to car ownership, like gas, oil, and insurance.
Perhaps charging for parking where it is now ‘free’ would have a greater affect on car ownership than mandating that if you own a car you will have no place to park it. Then the individual can make the decision, not have it thrust upon them.
In Uttlesford, near Saffron Walden, Essex, England, the latest parking headline reads “Cashless Parking Scheme Launched Across Uttlesford.” The area’s district council has taken on the latest in technology at the urging of residents and business owners.
It interests me how the English use the word “scheme” to mean “plan,” while in the United States, a “scheme” is most decidedly a venture of some crookedness, but that’s neither here nor there. This scheme is an honest one with honest intentions toward easing parking for locals.
Cllr Robert Mitchell, NEPP Joint Committee Chairman, said: “We are pleased to make hassle free cashless car parking payment available to Uttlesford’s residents and visitors. Online transactions for a host of daily essentials are the norm for many, so adding parking to the list is good news.”
The plan is comprehensive too, with payment options including a smartphone app, online portal, text or phone call. Users can manage their account online and add time to their meter from anywhere they get cell or internet service.
It’s hard to imagine parking with such ease, but if it works in Uttlesford, it can work anywhere.
Read the article here.
We are going to press with the program for PIE 2014. It will be distributed at the trade event plus sent to 18,000 parking professionals. If you want to be included in the program, you must that’s MUST secure your booth NLT Monday Morning.
Call Carol at 310 390 5244 ext 8
People will do a lot to protect their parking – they’ll even shoot themselves in the foot. Residents in a Portland neighborhood are considering permit-only parking regulations for their streets to fend off parkers from a nearby rail line. For now it’s just the TriMet employees working on the line who are parking in the residential area, but the competition for space will only get tougher when the rail line is finished, and locals don’t want to be pushed off their own roads.
I don’t think they’ve ever experienced resident-only parking restrictions or they wouldn’t be looking at this as a solution. ‘Resident only’ means you, your friends and your family are going to meet with considerable inconvenience when they want to stop by for dinner or spend the night. And it’s only a matter of time before someone you care about gets a ticket on your street, not to mention the 4 times a year you will forget to hang your permit in your window.
Brookly neighbors are considering enrolling in a neighborhood permit system. They would tax themselves $60 per year for a permit to park near their own houses. Anyone else parking in the area without a permit would get tickets.
What makes more sense to me is a 2, 3, or even 4-hour limit on weekdays during normal business hours. Commuters will be limited by the rule and will use the lot provided them instead of parking in the residential area.
It’s always a muddle to my why people want their privileges to be diminished so those same privileges can be withheld from someone else.
Read the article here.
Brandy Stanley in Las Vegas has always been cutting edge and her on street parking program is no different. Not only has she installed pay by space in Sin City, but also a program for locating Lunch Trucks (a phone app) and other sundry features.
One of the larger law firms in the city came to her and said that wanted to pay for their clients on street parking. The word ‘no’ not being in her vocabulary – unless she doesn’t want to do it — she sat out to ‘make it so.’
In the area around the firm’s offices, the Pay by Space machines have a little sign that tells parkers if they are going to a certain law firm, to simply remember their space number and give it to the receptionist in the lobby. She then goes on line and pays the parking fee for the client. Neat, huh?
It won’t work unless you are pay by space, but there you go.
Brandy tells me they are busy in Las Vegas. Her staff is not only running parking in the public lots, but in some private ones, too. She says that she doesn’t solicit this business and explains that her charges are higher than the private sector, but a number of off street owners seem to trust her operating expertise. She is also in negotiations to take over enforcement in the city of North Las Vegas.
In her spare time, she is fighting a class action law suit that concerns the turning off of parking meters when there is no parking fee required. She tells me that the streets are well signed, and people who have driving licenses are required to be able to read. Plus, she points out, when she shuts the meters down, she gets innumerable calls complaining that the meters are broken. Go Brandy.
The big game is just days away, and already, stories about parking on Super Bowl Sunday are filling the news. It’s not just the congestion around the area that will make it hard for everyone to park – residents and football fans alike; it’s not just the happy limo drivers who say they expect a lot of business and tell the public the best way to avoid the pre-game parking quagmire is to give them a call; and it’s not just team sustainable encouraging everyone to use public transit to get to the stadium. There’s also the crazy crew selling fake tickets to the game and fake passes for the parking lot.
Two Philadelphia men were just charged with selling fake Super Bowl tickets and parking passes. According to the article:
Police recovered 59 counterfeit tickets at Daniels’ Queens apartment Monday, including 36 Super Bowl tickets, eight stadium parking passes, 12 tickets to the NFL Honors Party at Radio City Music Hall in Manhattan and three tickets to the NFL Commissioner’s Party at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, said NYPD Lt. Chris Fasano, who headed the investigation following a tip from NFL’s security division last month.
Every year Super Bowl-goers break records for the price paid to park near the stadium. Every year the people who live near the game site get creative and sell parking privileges on their lawns and in their garages for a premium. Every year somebody does something illegal to make a buck off Super Bowl Parking.
It’s the biggest game of the year and parking mania is the second act. Go team.
An Australian man recently got a $110 ticket for stopping at a yellow curb for 3 seconds. He was letting some family members out of the car outside of a local shopping mall. Now he’s shocked and appalled. According to the article:
Greg Bahr said he didn’t see a council officer, but received a $110 fine in the mail.
“There’s two lanes there and an island,” Mr Bahr said.
“Where I stopped there’s no way you’re creating a hazard and everybody was doing it.
“I was there for three seconds, put my blinkers on, and they hopped out – a $110 fine for stopping for three seconds.
People are always shocked when enforcement officials don’t agree with their idea of “not hurting anyone.” But breaking the law is breaking the law.
I’m not saying I agree with the policy of ticketing people who need a place to unload passengers and can’t find one – the mall should consider that accommodating these shoppers instead of punishing them will bring in a lot more money. But I also don’t agree with people who break the law and act like a victim when the fine rolls in.
In this case, the law won and the shopper lost. The mall might lose, too, if it’s patrons decide it’s too much trouble to get inside. The win-win is a legal loading zone.
At California State University, Northridge, parking officials are hoping to reduce traffic congestion with the Zipcar program. The program offers rental cars to be used from the campus for about $8 per hour. According to the article:
“The program is meant to benefit CSUN students as well as faculty and staff in lowering gas emissions, parking congestion and [it] encourage[s] students that do drive to take public transit,” said Natalie Torlano, vice chair of environmental affairs for Associated Students.
The plan is that students who need to use a car during their school day will take public transit to campus and rent a car from there instead of driving their own car. The rental fees include gas, insurance and a mileage deal of 180 miles a day.
The university is trying several tactics to address parking problems. It offers shuttle service, and students are offered a significant parking permit discount for the shuttle lot. And engineering students at CSUN are working on a smartphone app that directs students to available parking.
“All of these programs are supported by the university in order to prevent building new structures that would in turn increase parking fees. State law prohibits educational funds from being used for anything but student tuition, parking has to support itself.”
I think this is a great idea. I know I could have used a rental car a hundred times when i was an underclassman living on my university’s campus. It’s great to see an organization get creative when it comes to solving its budget and parking issues.
The headline above is the exact wording on a sign in a parking lot for Stewarts in Frankfort, NY.
At the convenience store in Frankfort, the sign doesn’t seem to be causing any trouble, officials said. Stewarts spokeswoman Maria D’Amelia said the way the sign is designed is an attempt to keep things simple. “It’s pretty standard phrasing for this type of sign,” she said. “We would expect that it’s understood what it means.”
The way its written it can only mean one thing. If you park overnight, you won’t be prosecuted. Period. How can it mean anything else.
Although, assuming the last sentence in the quote above is accurate, maybe it can.