Welcome to brain Stuff production of I Heart Radio. Hey brain Stuff, Lauren Voge obamb here. Imagine it's Saturday afternoon, and due to a number of questionable choices that you made, either in this or a past life, you have a few necessary errands to run at the mall. So it seems does everyone else. The mall parking lot is crowded.
So where should you park your car if you're trying to save time at the first spot you see, no matter how far away from the entrance, or should you prowl for an elusive spot closer in there's a scientific study for that. It was published in September nineteen and the Journal of Statistical Mechanics and in it, Physics Professor's Sydney Rendner from the Santa Fe Institute and Paul Kravitzky of Boston University applied their mathematical prowess to pinpoint the
best parking spots search strategies. Here we define the best spot as the one nearest to the mall entrance. Some people might favor a spot on a top floor of a parking garage, for example, to prevent their harv of getting dinged, but that's another story. Rednar and Whisky divided parking personas into three categories, meek, optimistic, and prudent as they define them. Meek drivers immediately settle for the first spot they find, which may leave spots near the front unfilled,
a plus incur a long walk. Optimistic drivers aren't afraid to hunt, certain that eventually they'll triumphantly land their primo spot, no matter how many times they have to circle the lot to find it. Prudent parkers, meanwhile, are a bit more aggressive than meek drivers by passing the low hanging fruit in hopes of a closer spot, but are unwilling to circle several times to get just a bit closer
to their destination. They may end up backtracking to a spot that a meek driver would have claimed initially if they don't find something better immediately after identifying their categories, the scientists created a simulation using processes such as probability theory and rate equations. The researchers found that the prudent strategy was the best and that it cost drivers least amount of time, followed by the optimistic strategy and then
the meek strategy. Redner is quick to point out that this particular exercise is purely mathematical, he said via email. We try and hard to minimize the number of free parameters by judicious choices, such as assigning the same speed for walking and driving, and of course they couldn't account
for every variable. Quote. The main complication was the inherent many body nature of the parking process, and namely, one doesn't know in advance which spots are free, and the game is whether to pick the current spot or try another spot which may not be open closer to the destination. They also omitted real world variables like drivers speed, intense competition for spots, or the irrationality of harried human beings. Okay,
so that's the mathematical side of the story. But is there a parking lot strategy that better accounts for the quirks of real people. We also spoke via email with Andrew Velki, an associate professor of psychology at Christopher Newport University in Virginia. He said, it is important to note this simple fact. The success of my parking strategy is in part dependent upon which parking strategy the other drivers select. It's an excellent application of game theory e g. The
prisoner's dilemma. My best strategy is only better if enough other drivers select one of the alternative strategies. If everyone tried to play the same parking strategy, it would no longer be optimal. Velki also notes ideal parking spaces like right in front of your final destination, are usually unavailable. Quote time and perceived scarcity are the two biggest factors
that affect parking strategies. People will spend time looking for a parking space and incur a time travel cost from their vehicle to the final destination after they've parked their car. It appears that people are often attempting to reduce the time travel cost and often incur a greater acquisition time cost as a result. It's most interesting to note that people will try to get a parking spot that's closest to the door of the gym or exercise club that
there are about to enter. To answer our parking lot question, Vilki referred to paper published in the journal Transportation Science in which the researchers determined that the best strategy was to randomly pick a row and park in the closest apparent space in that row, or rather than to drive up and down multiple rows searching for a closer spot. In other words, the time saved in finding a spot made up for the longer time spent walking to the
front door. It wasn't a huge time savings though. In that model, the expected time to the front door from the spot using the pick a row method was sixty one point three one seconds. With the multiple row method it was seventy point seven seconds. Velki says those few times when we do score spot at the front become very memorable to us, but quote perhaps even more memorable are the times when we park our cars and come across a space right in front on our way to
the entrance of the destination. We will employ a counter factual if I had only driven around more process when we noticed the spaces we missed. As a result, people will overpredict both the likely availability of these spaces and their own likelihood of obtaining these spaces. Parking strategies are one thing, but parking lot design also dramatically affects efficiency
and space consumption. A British mathematics professor insists that lots with diagonal spaces dramatically reduce congestion and improve traffic flow compared to those that use grid patterns. Today's episode was written by Nathan Chandler and produced by Tyler Clang. Brain Stuff is a production of I Heart Radio's How Stuff Works.
Promoin this and lots of other topics, visit our home planet, how stuff Works dot com, and for more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.