> I do understand the appeal for automatic car parking, though, as the facility can be more space-efficient then. Yeah for cars it may work, but I don't see it

> I do understand the appeal for automatic car parking, though, as the facility can be more space-efficient then. Yeah for cars it may work, but I don't see it becoming big. 1) Capital expenditure to build a facility that can move cars which weigh 4000 pounds on average I don't think ever will be economical 2) We're a few years away from automatically parking cars, and a few decades from most cars having this ability. Much sooner than the possibility of seeing thousands of mechanised car parks around the world. But yeah it does make more sense than bikes. The issue with bikes here for example is throughput. If you look at the bike facility video you see there's one entrance, and one person waiting for the single-bike bandwidth facility to retrieve or store his bike. That's actually very poor considering places where parking is an issue, you tend to have hundreds of people picking up or storing their bikes during peak hours. Which means you end up needing multiple horizontal and vertical lanes and/or multiple facilities. All of this is pretty expensive, and the lanes used for robots might as well be used for people doing it manually. For cars throughput is also a problem but not as much, as here we have about 18 bikes and 8 cars for every 17 people, and the bikes are used more frequently. (i.e. you might drive from and to work once, but you'll bike from and to work, friends, grocery store, drinks in the evening, school etc), which means throughput is probably a bit more difficult for bikes, which is where machines do poorly considering adding bandwidth increases cost and decreases space efficiencies, which is the only thing this storage has got going for it. (besides security).