Can You Afford To Be A Future Driver?

I am sure that you have all seen the recent headlines. This year of 2016 is taking off with a rush with news about driverless autos. I have been fairly skeptical in the past in my writing about them but there has been much progress lately.

One of the first headlines that I saw was this “Uber Makes Deal to Expand Its Reach Into Public Transit.” Uber wants to let the traditional transit systems remain the “middle miles” of transportation while they take over the “first and last miles”. In this way buses can concentrate on the spines of the system and Uber make the door to door runs for transit riders. This could work in the total absense of fully autonomous vehicles. Just how it plays with the expense of daily trips for the lower income riders will remain to be seen.

Then came the announcement that “GM Invests $500 Million in Lyft, Plans System for Self-Driving Cars.” Ford Motor Co. has also made rumblings of additional research toward driverless vehicles but without a dollar figure.

Then, on the heels of Obama's final State of the Union address, in which he made little mention of the recent FAST Act transportation bill signed on Dec. 4, 2015 yet spoke of actions on the horizon, came this announcement. “U.S. Proposes Spending $4 Billion (over 10 years) on Self-Driving Cars.”

It would look as though the Obama Administration is getting into the promotion of autonomous vehicles.  Anthony Foxx, the Secretary of Transportation, made the first move during the Detroit Auto Show with a statement about an “ongoing effort to see connected and automated vehicles developed, deployed, on the market, and available to US drivers.” Under the President's proposal the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will be in charge in drafting the framework for autonomous driving technology that would encourage consistent rules across all 50 states. 

Mr. Foxx declined to say whether he expected bipartisan support for the proposed $4 billion driverless-car investment in the president’s budget, but given the Republican's penchant for rejecting anything with Obama's name on it, I believe that there is doubt. Is this where the GOP rises up and begins a campaign against the devastating and job-killing “war on cars”?

Some people are already on that track if you consider this, Self-driving cars will kill the auto industry

“The trouble is, the traditional auto makers, no matter how hard they try, are not likely to survive in an era of self-driving automobiles. If there is one thing the history of technological disruption teaches us, and we have seen a heck of a lot of it in the last couple of decades, it is that when there is a decisive shift from one technology to another, it is new companies that learn how to use it, not the old ones.”

How quickly will the self-driving car take off?

There has been a lot of investment, and a lot of interest, but so far there are not many cars that you can actually buy. Millennials seem to be shunning the industry as it is since the expense of owning an auto on top of their anticipated student loan payment could break their budget. Those in the lower income levels are rapidly being priced out of car ownership.

People of my generation bought cars for the thrill of driving on the open road. They have also lived with the drudgery of congested roadways and traffic jams. They have struggled with the endless search for limited downtown parking, yet kept the dream of technology that was still in the sci-fi books only a few years ago alive. 

How will they deal with it when it becomes a reality?

If It Is Coming, We Need To Plan For It

Nearly every major car maker in America and several large technology firms are racing to develop vehicles that can operate with limited-to-no human interaction. Driver-less cars are on the horizon. Some say within 20 years.

If that is the case, then the auto industry will take a dramatic turn from selling to the individual to selling to transportation service providers. As young professionals across the Western world are discovering, it is extremely more convenient to summon a form of transportation than to concern ones self about where and how to store or maintain an expensive automobile. To Millenials, the automobile is not the freedom device it was to their parents and much more costly than their current freedom device, their smart phone/tablet.

With that in mind, I would like to know just how cities like Lexington are beginning to plan for streets full of such driverless autos. 

 

Downtown

I can see one scenario where more and more commuters choose to use an automated form of transit (not the flying cars from the science fiction movies of the '50s) like a driverless car to carry them downtown in the morning and make a return pick up in the evening. They need not bother about a designated parking spot nor the questionable safety of the trek to the garage. How would this affect the look and feel of downtown Lexington?

Many of the comments I have received on this blog have dealt with the need for downtown residents to have their personal, and private, parking. The primary reasons stated are the need for a car to leave downtown for the weekly shopping trip or other amenities not currently found downtown. I feel that the age range for these folks will fall squarely in the Baby Boomer set, still enamored with the freedom of a set of wheels.

Too many times I have read the projections of planners who looked at past trends and fell short of the impact of a cultural or social shift, or the media pundits who forecast rosy urban developments which falter due to local/global economic situations. They are fun to read when they do both with different aspects of several connected elements of society.

I do not think that it is too soon to begin monitoring the possible shifts in parking demand in he suburbs. Reports from this past Black Friday shopping frenzy lead one to believe that the parking fields of many malls and commercial centers fell far from crowded. The use of land-use related parking minimums are being rethought by more communities than Lexington.

Those same parking shifts could tell an even better story for downtown. Without the need for one to store an automobile for up to 8 hours a day, how many of our current surface parking lots would pay for themselves in daily revenue? How many more of these lots can, and should, be put to better use?

From my memory and experience, the local community has not planned for potential uses of demolished buildings, citing the lack of jurisdiction due to it being “private property” yet requiring permission to erect anything in its place. History has shown us that the “stop gap” measure of allowing a temporary parking lot is anything but – temporary.

Suburbs

In the suburbs, life without an auto will present many new challenges. These same people who find commuting to work easier may also wish to use a different sized driverless vehicle to take the family to the park, pool or the movies. Weekly shopping trips may also be accomplished with similar ease. What should not be necessary, in the long run, is the large ocean of parking around even the simplest of shopping developments.

Is someone now looking at what alternative configurations may be possible for the existing commercial areas? The current B-6P zoning classification is considered a “Planned Shopping Center” zone, with its own set of minimum parking requirements. Widespread use of driverless vehicles, increased online shopping (with drone delivery) or even major enhancements to the existing mass transit system can render those requirements obsolete in just a few years. A forward looking community should have a concept of what an alternative could look like.

Staging Areas 

 

At the point that driverless cars become as prevalent as as anticipated above, the sheer number of such vehicles would mean a systematic and strategic set of maintenance and staging facilities. Today's family car gets a somewhat limited amount of daily use, roughly 1-3 hours out of 24. A fleet of driverless vehicles could go from one assignment to another almost 24/7, much like the fire and emergency fleet does currently. They will need the typical refueling and maintenance but at a higher frequency interval. 

 

Does this bode well for the once ubiquitous service stations, now convenience stores? Which zone would be best for such a facility? Following in the footsteps of VHS vs Beta, Apple vs Microsoft and Uber vs Lyft, will there be competing versions of driverless systems out there?

Auto dealers

 

Then there is the whole question of dealing with the usually unsavory task of shopping for a car. Will it be a new car or a used car, will you go for all of the bells and whistles as add-ons, 2-door or four,and will you take the luxury car path? All of these questions may become moot save for the hold outs of the 1% who already have drivers employed. An interesting story from the Tech Insider on the shift in car ownership may be found here.

 

It may not be right around the corner and it may take a while to fully get here, but the whole concept of planning is to look to the future and its possibilities. From what I read, of the 50 largest US cities only 6% of cities’ transportation plans consider the potential effect of driverless technology. Their land-use plans are probably also lagging as far behind as well.

I, and many other Baby Boomers, may not ever buy one or even use one very often but the say that they are coming. Our technology developers are planning for and I don't think that our urban planners are.

I am open for any comments.

When Will Lexington Cool Off Its Auto Love Affair?

In April of last year it was reported that European car sales were continuing their slide to a 20-year low. 

“The car boom in Germany has come to an end,” said Hans-Peter Wodniok, an analyst at Fairesearch GmbH & Co. “People have stopped buying cars as consumers are much less confident of the future. It was said that the western European passenger-car market was on track last year to hit levels last seen in 1993. This was also about the time that some folks were trying to convince me that our car driving habits were being adopted by the Europeans.

If things have not improved since then, I ask you, just what are the Europeans doing instead of buying cars? The Germans have a long history of being ardent automobile enthusiasts and some of the finest driving machines have been produced by the Germans, but if they are not buying cars to drive, what are they doing?

Germany has become the world's biggest user of one-way car sharing plans. That is where people can find a vehicle using their smart-phone, drive it across town and leave it there without having to return it to a central base, much like the bike sharing programs being started in Washington DC and New York.

In America, we have other alternatives to auto ownership which are emerging. A ride-sharing company called Zipcar and a ride-booking service named Uber Technologies are beginning to appeal to a new generation of drivers, or in many cases riders. Many more young people just aren't pursuing drivers' licenses these days.

In 1983, 87.3 percent of 19-year-olds in the U.S. held a drivers license, by 2010 it had fallen to 69.5%. Automobile ownership, which once equated to a “rite of passage” has dropped to the point that almost one in 10 households don't have a car.

Some of this shift comes from changing attitudes on oil consumption for environmental, political and economic reasons. A new survey from Intel has found that 44 percent of people would prefer to live in a city with automated "driverless" cars than to have some car makers' high-cost product.

The transportation mode which ushered in an era of personal mobility in the last century may now no longer the most convenient conveyance. "The key question is: Do you sell cars or do you sell mobility?" said Tim Ryan, New York-based vice chairman of markets and strategy for consultant PricewaterhouseCoopers. 

Although Germany's new vehicle registrations fell below 3 million last year, continuing a two-decade decline, Chinese consumers continue to have a voracious appetite for automobiles, as more of the country's 1.3 billion people climb the economic ladder. China, in 2009, surpassed the U.S. as the world's largest auto market while struggling with urban gridlock and growing pollution that has created a brown haze over many large cities. In Shanghai, new license plates are auctioned off for an average of $13,400 per tag to slow auto sales and cut pollution..

So, somewhere between the German automotive market and culture and the Chinese market and desires is the U.S., wavering between falling miles traveled per person and a recovering auto economy. The sad fact is that the recovery may be losing steam before rebounding fully. Ford and GM are expecting a basically flat 2014, with low single-digit growth in revenue. Their Oriental competitors may actually see a slight decline.

Will our Millenials follow the lead of their counterparts in Europe and embrace the car-sharing and transit oriented lifestyle? Many indicators say that they will, especially in America's major cities. It will not be easy since many states and communities are still working under antiquated Public Services Commission rules. Pittsburgh's mayor is now asking that the Pennsylvania PSC allow for car-sharing in his city.

The for-hire ride market has been raising tensions between cities or states and the changing Millenial attitudes. The auto industry may also be applying some pressure since it is estimated that for every car that is part of a vehicle-sharing program, the auto industry misses out on 32 sales. Perhaps based on their two decade experience, Germany's powerful auto industry now is betting big on the car sharing idea and not just for short trips within cities.

America's century-long love affair with the car is cooling and young people are three times more likely than older generations to abandon their vehicle if costs increase. Some in our community will rush toward the new technology and many will stay with the old stand-by modes. The question remains as to how do we plan for the results of this trend and how soon will its effects reach Lexington?

Are We Planning For Real Change

Apparently seeing one of Google’s experimental, driverless cars driving or parking itself on a San Francisco street, is not all that unusual. So, can you imagine just how the widespread use of driverless autos might affect the city of Lexington? Would you be much different than the residents here in the late 1890s had they been told that horses could soon be a rare sight in city streets? How will you react when you first encounter an example of one?

With so many people working and thinking about this technology will our planners soon have to begin incorporating provisions for it? Most of our city's plans have been prepared as looking about 20 years into the future, yet history (our history) shows that our future is moving well faster than we have ever planned for. My favorite example is the plans to expand our former streetcar system in 1930 and within the decade the whole system was gone. Life moves a bit faster these days.

A common scenario for driverless cars is one where you don’t drive in circles looking for a parking spot because your car drops you off and then parks itself to await your call. From a current local viewpoint this is desirable since it is your car and you want it available when you need it. From the view of one from a more populous area, a taxi or car service can work better, hence the rise of Zipcar and Uber. 

For many in this country, an automobile is a mobile storage devise for their belongings and which takes them places.

Next, let us imagine that we will eschew the use of “personal” autos for the ease of use of driverless car services. The then common dream is that surface parking lots will become park or recreation areas. I find wildly unlikely unless it is a city owned lot and most are not. Parks are a revenue drain and not a revenue generator, therefore the bane of private investors. 

What do you expect to see happen to this property then? Can you squeeze a modern usage building on some of these oddly shaped lots without taking a few “historic” structures?

Shifting our attention to the streets themselves, many say that we will need far fewer traffic signals when both autos and the streets are equipped with sensors and can coordinate between each other. What does that do to the walkability of an area? Can we cross the street safely with out traffic signals if the driverless cars are zipping by nose to tail with each other?

On the one hand, streets can then be narrower if there is no need for on street parking, but narrower streets are a problem to some of our massive delivery vehicles. Until they develop a self unloading delivery vehicle I doubt that we will see a driverless one. Parking lane may disappear but the loading zone will be with us a while longer.

In our suburbs we can begin to eliminate the large expanses of parking at the shopping malls and big-box stores if the trips are made in neighborhood “pool car” which will drop you off and come to get you. (Kind of sounds like a circulatory bus without a driver doesn't it?) To what use will all of that land be put then?

May we also see the loss of the attached multi-car garages with their mostly blank panels or, worse yet, a gaping maw of an opening. Among many Millennials the auto as a status symbol is a foreign concept and it is becoming harder to sell them on it.

Speaking of selling things, how will they sell driverless car and to whom. 

It's no secret that car commercials are, by and large, fiction. Shiny cars roaring along empty city streets devoid of traffic jams. Not a traffic jam (or signal) in sight, just the joy of the open road for the driver. How can you get an exhilarating feeling if you are not driving? Will car commercials disappear like the cigarette one did but for different reasons?

How soon do you think that some kind of drastic change can come about? Above are just a few of the early changes that we could see should we adopt the driverless auto as quickly as we did the “horseless carriage”. Perhaps you have thought of something I left out. Drop me a line and tell me you thoughts.

Whither A State Of Transportation?

Sometimes it is quite difficult to determine on what subject I want to write and at other times the subject just leaps at me. Lately I have been reading about the transportation situation facing us locally and nationally and how we will pay for it.

With all of the construction workers out of work will a resumption of the highway building and other major building projects help solve the unemployment problem? Will spending more money on highways prove sensible while Americans are driving less and the younger generation is buying fewer automobiles?

Back at the end of March, the architecture critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer Inga Saffron, posited that perhaps we American's are a bit too haphazard about how we allocate our transportation funds. We tend to push for lane and intersection improvements to some of our arterial streets in Lexington, huge Interstate interchanges in downtown Louisville, and massive new bridge projects in Cincinnati and Louisville. But, when it comes to any sort of mass transit style proposal the masses go all livid about the freedoms of movement and choice which will be infringed.

Highway funding is becoming increasingly tight, in part because Congress and States are unwilling to raise the gasoline tax on steadily rising fuel prices. The American Society of Civil Engineers believe that we are so far behind on infrastructure repairs that they recently gave an overall D+ to the conditions of our nation's bridges and roads. One must realize that it is in the best interest of the ASCE to chase new construction projects for their members. I personally feel that this grade is not from design and age, but from simple overuse of a “free”amenity.

Around the same time, a writer for the Washington Post revealed that the famous Capital Beltway was slowly dying beneath the turning wheels of about a quarter-million cars a day. As they called it, “turning to mush”before their eyes. In what sounds like an excerpt from one of our Council work sessions, “... the older base layers under the asphalt, the surface is not able to absorb the pounding the way it used to...” was used to describe the continuing situation.

I don't believe that the Beltway or any of our primary arterial roadways will die, but they will need to be relieved of much of the stress to which we put them. U.S. drivers, and the commerce on which they rely, are riding on baby-boom-generation roadways, which like us boomers ourselves are no longer so steady and sound. Nearly a third of the nation’s major roads currently need significant repair or replacement, with a far higher percentage in the busiest urban areas, to meet the demand now placed on them.

Bad roads are partly a cause of sticker creep at the checkout aisle, just as the the cost of fixing them is about to cause sticker shock at the gas pump. Delays and bad roads add to the $25 billion in goods delivered nationwide every day which is naturally added to price tags at supermarkets and department stores.

Many state's officials see roads that need replacement and highways that need to be expanded. They cite statistics which show vehicle travel jumped by 39 percent from 1990 to 2008. Despite an acknowledged decline in vehicle miles traveled over the past 5 years, the forecast is to increase another 35 percent by 2030. 

Add to all of the above the comments I heard at the forum on climate change held last week at the University of Kentucky. 

In his presentation on looking for “Free-Enterprise Approaches to Energy Security and Climate Change.”, Bob Inglis, former U.S. representative from South Carolina, expressed his thoughts that sometime, in the near future, we will be traveling the highways in packs of high-speed, robot driven and individually powered vehicles.

According to one description that I have read, this would be a whole new world of cars are packed nose to tail traveling at speeds in excess of current limits. They will weave their way through unmarked junctions, with no traffic lights. Lane markings are non-existent, and stretches of road may switch from being one-way in one direction, to the opposite, with no warning. Perhaps most alarming of all, very few of the “occupants” have even passed a driving test. I see more similarities of riding high speed rail in this than shopping for the family car.

This sounds like Utopia if it occurs out on the open highway lie an Interstate, but do we want this in our urban areas and residential streets? Just when we have made good gains in taking back the streets (Complete Streets planning) from the free-wheeling autos, will we have to redouble our efforts again?

From my personal experience of Interstate driving, I am either passing the casual drivers and the revenue generating long-haul truckers or being passed by, largely singly occupied, long distance commuters, but the common theme is that, unless it is rush hour, we all have plenty of room. 

Efficiency and logic should dictate that these packs of robotic driven vehicles be composed of like vehicles. Trucks with trucks, SUVs with SUVs, single occupants with single occupants on down the line. Also considered should be the fuel and maintenance compatibilities of those allowed in each pack. Sounds like it may be simpler to take the train.

Such vehicles may be much more aware of their own positions and of those vehicles around them, but they also need to be aware of all other animate objects before they are allowed to roam our residential streets. I would worry less about the auto leaving the street than I would about the random child/toy or the stray pet/wild animal entering the roadway.

But, let us assume that all of these possibilities are accounted for and that there will be NO accidents (Yeah, I laughed at that also). If there are no accidents, then there is no one at fault and there is no need for insurance. Norm McDonald, Flo and that Allstate guy will have to join the gecko in the audition line for work. Darryl the “Heavy Hitter” and all of those other law firms will have to fight over the remaining legal claims.

Making further assumptions, I see all of the auto dealers trying to differentiate their models from the other mundane “hop in and let the robot have all of the fun” vehicles out there. There will be no “thrill of the open road” if all are running in packs and we are watching the scenery flying by. The “sports car handling” so familiar to the earliest baby boomers and lacking on most all SUVs and trucks will not be a selling feature unless you are buying antiques.

I worry that the free enterprise of this will inflate the ranks of the unemployed while not solving the infrastructure cost dilemma. Young people are driving less, automobiles are costing more (both initially and over their lifetimes) and the real-time level of wages is stagnant so who will be able to afford such extravagances? And will the roads be there upon which to use them?

Black Boxes For Your Shiney Metal Boxes

Is anyone ready for some startling news out of Washington DC.

Our Federal regulators are making ready some new rules which will require event data recorders - also called "black boxes" - in all new cars and light trucks. Currently 91.6 percent of all U.S. autos have them. Since automakers have been surreptitiously doing this for years - despite privacy concerns – I wonder why all the uproar now.

These devices record driver actions and vehicle response for accident investigation, or that is the stated reason for their use. With the nano-miniaturization these days, they can record well more than the last 10 seconds of active use or the 15 data types of the early models. Some investigators have identified around 80 data points which could be useful.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is expected to release the rules in the next few days making these devices mandatory equipment and record at least 30 data types. There will be no opt-out, but many of the most popular models have had these things since the early ‘90s (about the time that they began OnStar). This information was only divulged in the last 3 months.

"Most people who are operating a motor vehicle have no idea this technology is integrated into their vehicle." said Lillie Coney, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a privacy advocacy group. I will go one better, most people who are operating a motor vehicle have no idea that they are driving a cell phone on wheels.

The fact that the auto can do a self diagnosis and call you with the results would raise many more privacy concerns than the last 10 seconds before an accident. Your auto has the ability to call OnStar (or just about anybody else) with or without alerting you first. The progress being made on driver-less vehicles is depending on this inter-vehicle communication for spacing and collision avoidance. Who knows when else they could talk between themselves. (Grillebook as a social medium, anyone?)

Despite privacy complaints, the government so far hasn't put any limits on how the information can be used. Right now there are no bounds or consequences, either to the government or any commercial venture, legal or not. Cell phone “aps” which will allow you limited operation of your auto remotely may not be as secure as they would have you believe.

Recorder data from some vehicles has already contributed to the traffic safety administration's conclusion to the problem of sticky gas pedals and floor mats that could jam them. They have also shown several high profile celebrities to have been at fault for traffic cases. Data that could be gathered from the other OnStar like systems would show where people shop, work and live, maybe that is currently being done also.

In the Senate’s transportation bill, passed earlier this year, the vehicle’s owner was designated as the owner of the required, recorded data. I wonder how much money one could get for collecting their own data and selling it on the open market. Would you be willing to sell your data for the right price? This provision was removed in a House/Senate conference negotiation, ostensibly for privacy reason but maybe to limit your ability to profit from your information This may be a slippery slope toward big government and Big Brother as noted by Rep. Bill Shuster, (R-Pa) but many of us on that slope are moving fast and picking up speed.

When I first read about this, the online comments ranged from “I'll not buy a new car again” (Well that works for Cuba) to “A powerful magnet will render it useless in no time”. Not buying a new car, in the type of urban development we have now, may be possible if very few communities and certainly not in Lexington. Being limited by the public transit systems in most places will be more unpleasant than having the insurance company know how (not where) you are driving. And speaking of the insurance companies, how do you think that they will react when they know that you have disabled a required “safety” device.

Ironically, the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers is to the government requiring recorders in all vehicles, yet I doubt that this rises from any privacy concerns. Whenever the government gets involved or legitimizes an effort that you or your industry is doing, then they get to apply arbitrary rules and direct industry standards. Not that the industry could not also make some unsavory, arbitrary rules for their own good. Who do you trust, the government or private industry?

So, the barn door is open and the Genie is almost out of the bottle. How do you feel about this: a government intrusion or apt regulation?

The Chevy Volt Fulfills A Dream?

General Motors allowed some test drives of their Chevy VOLT, the electric auto that is supposed to change the world. HybridCars.com has posted their early impressions and I'll tell you that I don't think that I'll be in line to buy one.

The big selling point is the all electric driving for up to 40 miles before you need the gas engine kick in and maintain the charge level. Ideally, this type of vehicle would be used by someone who has to travel less than 20 miles to work or shop. 20 there and 20 back, simple. For a lot of us that is no problem, but that means few or no side trips elsewhere. Like HybridCars says, the EV miles are the simple ones.

A number of my friends live just a little farther out that the 20 miles to get to town and their jobs. They would be using up the 40 miles before you know it. Maybe, for these folks, they will want to use the EV mode to leave home and get to the main highway where the can make better speed, then switch to the gas engine till they get to the city and switch back to EV for the easy miles around town. You know, save the electric usage for the in town driving. At that point all the engine noise will be left on the open road.

This is the kind of thing that fits well with the relationship that GM has with Google. They have an app for that, or there will be apps for it. You should be able to program your commute to fit your schedule and hopefully program your re-charging and down time. Maybe you could reprogram your lifestyle to fit your car.

Right now it seems that the availability will be more limited that the Toyota Prius was after it was introduced. There are currently 130 and all in the hands of engineers and test cases. Next year's model will be produced in the thousands(hardly enough to fulfill the hype and don't expect to see any major changes) and later models in the tens of thousands. Whoopee!!!

Then there is the solution that they have come up with for the problem of quiet electric autos. The driver will be allowed to control a chirp like sound that emanates from the hood. This would supposedly alert the blind and possibly an unaware pedestrian. Most drivers don't know when to use their turn signals, so how would they know when they are approaching a blind person in order to initiate the chirping sound. Maybe there will be an app for that too.

With enough apps maybe Randal O'Toole is right and a simple software upgrade will make it a driverless vehicle that is in limited availability and that hardly anyone can afford to keep on the road.

Thoughts On Driverless Cars

Back in March, my favorite tool, Randal O'Toole had apiece in the Wall Street Journal about taking the driver out of the car. By that he did not mean getting people out of their cars but just not letting them drive. Randal has long had an aversion to government or planner control of what he considers "personal freedoms", such as where we live and work or how we get between them. In his WSJ article, he clearly buys in to the belief that we can, by use of technology, create a system to allow passengers(i.e. not the drivers) to zip across the country to their destinations.

Driverless cars have so far remained the stuff of science fiction... they are finally close to reality... Making them completely driverless will involve little more than a software upgrade.

Most "coast to coast" travel is done by air nowadays so I doubt that Randal is speaking only of "coast to coast" travel and mainly focusing on commuting and regional travel. The commuting public is usually the group that ends up in gridlock situations. This brings up the question of when will such a system be required on even the majority of personal autos and who will enforce that requirement. My bet is that it will be government planners.

There are currently on the market several makes of autos that can self park and/or notify the driver of dangerous situations but these come with hefty price tags. Low end cars are what dominate the market these days (we are still in a recession). O'Toole mentions some experimental autos that make use of the enhanced global positioning system and how such technology would be used to allow autos to travel mere inches apart at cruising speed or higher(ala NASCAR). Have you seen the mess that makes with just one little bobble or a mechanical failure? And doesn't the government control the GPS satellites?

What would it do to the marketing of automobiles? Today they appeal to the "thrill of the open road" and the "joy of driving", if you remove the driver then all you are buying is a shiny metal box on wheels. Each one little different that the other, where is the status symbol in that? One would not be allowed to perform differently than another(that would defeat the purpose) but it could control the cost. Uh oh, there is the word again, control, Randal doesn't like that word.

Then there is the question of the speed limit or the cruising speed of normal traffic. Would you be able to switch the technology on and off depending on conditions? Would you need it on lightly used roadways? What if you wanted to take a more leisurely pace, to take in the scenery instead of whipping by at high speed? Higher throughput for the morning and evening rush hours would make for shorter commute times but does nothing for the destination storage problem nor the singularity of use insanity of auto ownership.

If we were to make this a reality AND peak oil proves to be correct, with what would we fuel these autos? Electric vehicles get up to 40 miles on an 8 hour charge, and while this may change, that is hardly sufficient for the longer, standard commute of many Central Kentuckians or the commutes of larger urban areas. This would require the non-use of the vehicle for the entire working day while it recharges, not to mention that parking lots and garages are not set up for such a thing. These things would have to be planned for, especially in government owned and operated garages. Parking spaces in shopping centers is a whole other story, can we guess how that would end?

I have no doubt that Randal's scenario could be accomplished but not without a major paradigm shift and a lot of planning. It is a lot more than a "simple software upgrade" and not without a lot of other variables being just so. If private industry is going to drive(so to speak) this driverless auto scenario, then they are coming to the table very slowly and if the Deepwater Horizon disaster and the Toyota (et. al.) recalls are any indication, then I don't want their type of technology.

Gridlock And What To Do About It

Our favorite transportation planner, Randal O'Toole has a new book coming out soon called "Gridlock: Why We Are Stuck In Traffic and What To Do About It". This book is supposed to set the planning world on its ear.

The ideas put forth here are the same that we have heard from Mr. O'Toole for years. That American people cherish their mobility and that the personal auto is the ultimate in convenience. Not only is it inexpensive but it is available to nearly any family in the developed world. That mass transportation(buses, trains etc.) are not a replacement for the personal auto and limiting auto mobility would be detrimental to society. I wonder what the good people of New Orleans will say when they remember the post Katrina days of no transportation out, even when there were plenty of buses with no drivers.

O'Toole says that this book will oppose any government subsidies to any transportation mode as well as any government efforts to reduce individual driving. Any subsidies? Does that mean funds in addition to the Highway Trust Fund which cannot cover all that is expected of it now? Lexington and the state of Kentucky cannot currently maintain the road that they have sufficiently, much less any new or upgraded roads.

Users should be able to choose whatever transportation they like as long as they pay their way.

The Antiplanner, from The Ultimate Transportation Antiplanning Book

As a resident of Lexington and a driver in the state of Kentucky, I do not see my personal local money being used to repair any street or any parking lot. Those funds come from the hidden increase in the cost of goods and services that I buy, and not just the frivolous stuff, I am talking about the basics of life. Anything that moves over the roads is subject to the fees and the additional cost is passed on to the consumer. The cost of maintaining the parking lot at the local grocery is added to the price of food, the lot at the movies is added to the price of the tickets and the road in front of my house is added to the property tax bill(given the residential density of our suburban sprawl, most streets will not pay for themselves).

O'Toole also tries to get away from the old argument of rails vs. roads by pushing a new third position, using technology to provide mobility and congestion relief, by making the current roads more efficient. Using driverless vehicles. Driverless cars that will allow more vehicles to move closer to each other and at higher speeds and hopefully with no collisions.

This, of course, would require the rebuilding of all the roadways with the technology capable of controlling such vehicles AND the requiring the retrofitting of autos with these controls. I imagine that this would be paid for by the auto's owner and the owner of the roads. Currently the government owns the roads and since they(the government) are not allowed to subsidize the system, the government may not upgrade the roads, so I wonder who will. There is also, at this time, a strong opposition the the installation of GPS tracking devices for the recording of VMT on which to base a roadway fee(tax) in lieu of the gas tax, so will total control be allowed by the general driving public? Anyone with the OnStar system already has the GPS tracking so it may not be a problem.

I am curious to know which roads will be the first to be fitted for the driverless controls. Will it be the Interstates and the major US highways between our major cities( the one that flow fairly well as it is) or will it be the urban arterial and collector type streets where the commuter back-ups occur today? How far down the functional classification list will the control level go? Will it extend to the local and cul-de-sac level, if not how will you get your auto to the closest control point? Will manual control and driverless control be able to mix on the roadways? And what will become of the "complete streets" movement that seems to be sweeping the country these days.

Thinking about this brings to mind an online conversation I had with another commenter to a Herald-Leader article. A resident of Richmond, Ky. had expressed his opinion on spending money on some changes to Esplanade. His premise was to spend more money on widening the streets of Lexington, to allow his daily trip through town(from Richmond to Lawrenceburg) in a 4x4 truck to be made in a less obtrusive manner. He wants us to spend our funds to make his commute better and he does not live or pay taxes here.

I, of course, took offense to his callous abuse of Lexington's already horrendous carbon footprint and suggested that we(Lexington) did not need his type mucking up our county. It soon became evident that this Madison County redneckwas not the type to be told that he would(or could) give up control of his vehicle. Clearly his actions to get ahead were ones that have been taught and will, if followed, place one squarely behind the eight ball in the coming environmental and financial paradigm reset.

Randal O'Toole and this fellow from Richmond will both resist the government's intrusion to their lives, but I doubt that they will agree on Lexington's traffic problems.

The driverless car

The other day, our favorite transit hater, Randal O'Toole brought up the subject of "the driverless car" in which he points out that research on the matter has apparently stalled. I guess that the boom in "mega" SUVs and the hybrid movement took up too much of the research dollars. Maybe it was the need to have the Federal Government become part of the implementation process.

There was one successful demonstration of an automated highway system in 1997 and since then the efforts have focused on more intelligent vehicles, not roadways. The designers are making the autos capable of recognizing passive road markings and talking to each other. This should allow them to "socialize" and then "run in packs" so as to relieve roadway congestion. Or, at least that is the theory.

I am not so sure that I want my car talking to others. I don't want my car talking to anybody without me knowing what is being said, but then I have a sneaking suspicion that most autos made today have the circuitry installed for a cell phone. That's right, those cars that charge premiums for Onstar, already have the circuitry and only have to uncover the little blue button. They can sell it all they want on safety, and it has been used for that, but when the car can tell someone( that infamous someone) where you are, what you are saying and with whom you are associating without your knowledge, I kind of worry a little.

Twelve years ago when they started, 9/11 had not occurred, Homeland Security did not exist and they assured everyone that only they would let the information out to the appropriate law enforcement agencies. At one point, you had to allow them to release the information, now if you report a car stolen, the police call for the information and track the car. (The car thief does not push the blue button)

I once thought that the greatest danger of this system was from the business community. Buying the information of where you shopped, at what time of day, cross-tabulating with the merchant for what you bought and then targeting you with specialized video billboards when you were in the proximity of your usual haunts. Now the biggest villain may be the Government, not commerce.

O'Toole postulates that of the two technologies, the automated highway may be the easier and cheaper.

I suspect the first paradigm has a lower cost and higher benefits, partly because (again, just a suspicion) the benefits of driverless cars may be greatest if they are not integrated with driver-operated cars. But the first paradigm has the biggest chicken-and-egg problem. Other people think the second paradigm makes the most sense, partly because the cost of computer processing power is falling rapidly. The second paradigm does not have as big a chicken-and-egg problem, but state laws that require drivers to be fully in control of their cars at all times would need to be changed and, I suspect, highway owners might need to better maintain signage, stripes, etc.

In both of these cases, The Antiplanner has mentioned that the Government must have some level of involvement and that meas that Government planners will get their hands on it. And according to O'Toole, the planners have screwed up just about everything that they have touched.

Take for example two of the greatest advances in transportation in America, the transcontinental railroad and the Interstate Highway System. The railroad was devised and completed without government funding(lots of free land, but no Federal subsidy) and fulfilled the idea of "Manifest destiny" to most Americans. It wasn't until about the start of the 20th century that the government started to exert some sort of control.

Interstate Highways are another story. President Eisenhower brought back the idea of high speed, divided highways from Germany, as a way to travel between cities. It was the planners at the state and local levels who messed up the game and drove them straight in to the hearts of cities, ripping out great swaths of established neighborhoods, and in cases like Louisville and Cincinnati, separating the downtowns from their historical lifebloods , the rivers. Thankfully, Lexington kept I-64/I-75 on the periphery. And all of it financed(subsidized) by the federal government taxpayers.

What did I just hear? A loud cry of "Wait, We pay for what we get". Well, apparently not enough. The national infrastructure has received a failing grade from the American Society of Civil Engineers.

American Society of Civil Engineers says under-funding has caused the nation's infrastructure to crumble - and stimulus won't do enough.

We cannot maintain what we have and still we want to build more. More lanes to carry more single occupancy vehicles heading to same mass storage spaces instead of mass occupancy vehicles heading to no storage space at all.

The solution is not to have more of the same option to similar problems but to have more options to the one problem. Mr. O'Toole is heading in the wrong direction.