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.

Sustainable And Nourishable Places

It is no secret that I am very pro local food. Mrs. Sweeper and I have tried our best to find, buy and prepare local foods. That is why we frequent the farmers markets of the area and have joined a cowshare program. I also have not been shy in commenting about the shortcomings of the Kentucky Proud program that is run by the Ky. State Agriculture Department.

It has not been an easy task to find certain local food services, but why is it an even more onerous task for the local farmer?

The idea of knowing where your food comes from is appealing to more and more families every day. Concern over food safety and eating of a healthy diet is in the news on a daily basis. So, why are the local, state and federal regulatory agencies not doing more for the growing “locavore” enthusiasts?

Sustainable development and sustainable cities have been buzzwords in the planning literature for several years and yet we are no closer to achieving such a system than we were thirty years ago. These words are now creeping into our mayoral election and yet we still hear of no solutions being put forth by any of the candidates.

Lately, I have seen a new designation put forth, a label of Nourishable Places. Nourishable Places are ones that grow a significant portion of their food within a few miles of where it is eaten AND could grow more in a long emergency. Unfortunately they are found in very few locations in the First World today. The typical ingredients for a family meal – what is that these days?- will travel over 1,300 miles to get to the table. It is getting worse daily.

In some parts of the country, particularly the Northwest, things are changing. According to Crosscut.com there are more, smaller farms developing on the urban fringes of their Olympic area cities. Even places like Detroit MI and Dayton, OH. are looking at vegetable farming on some of their abandoned residential properties. There are places in Lexington where we could use some of our reclaimed urban floodplain land for community garden plots if need be.

Those actions may help us out in the fruits and vegetables department but will do us no good for the rearing of farm animals. But here too there we are seeing an increase in the number of small farms.

There are now new problems with this rise on farm animal production on small farms and that is, where do they get their processing done? The number of slaughterhouses nationwide declined to 809 in 2008 from 1,211 in 1992, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. America’s small independent farmers are now being forced to schedule their slaughters BEFORE the animals are born AND drive them hundreds of miles to slaughtering facilities. This added movement causes an unneeded stress on the animals and expense to the farmer.

The interest in grass fed and finished or even organic beef and lamb and the non antibiotic, no hormone added production of these animals means that using some of the larger slaughterhouses opens the possibility of introducing e-coli and other unwanted contaminants.

Slaughterhouses should not be placed just anywhere and certainly not in the most urban parts of a state, but as a matter of economic development and employment generators, they are something that a politician should be aware of.

Lexington may one day find that the concept of “peak oil” or “climate change” is real, or maybe there could be a natural or man made disaster requiring that we sustain ourselves. So far, I think that we as a city would fail the sustainability test. We are somewhat positioned, with the PDR program, to have land in the county that could be used for food production (you know, we cannot eat the horses) but we are lacking in the processing facilities necessary for a city of this size. Home canning, for the most part, is a lost art among the youth of today and butchering may mean that they would have to get their hands dirty, so we may be in trouble.

High-tech, healthcare and horses may be of some priority is certain circles and a vibrant, socially conscious downtown is a priority in others, while health and human safety or social responsibility and government corruption will highlight another’s political rhetoric. If we don’t try to arrange for our very basic needs of good food and water, all of it locally grown or collected and processed, then it may all be for nought.

The Questions Not Asked

I have not been able to attend any of the Mayoral forums as of yet but I have kept up with how they went through all the reporting and the Twitter logs available. It seems that I and Steve Austin are in agreement in the notion that - so far all the questions have been about things that are already water under the bridge.

We are going to be selecting a person the lead the city into the future, not worry about how it should have been handled last time. The problems looming on the horizon are much more worrisome than whether there is full disclosure about some private business project in downtown. What I want to know is- How are we going to handle thing like "Peak Oil", climate change, or some of the other situations coming down the road but not yet fully manifest. These are questions that our young, "creative class", social media savvy bloggers and reporters have avoided completely.

How will our future leaders solve the dilemma of the residents of our outer suburbs when the price of fuel is out of reach to the common person? Our edge subdivisions are not being served by mass transit and the idea of regional transit is not on the radar. How do they plan on feeding the masses when transportation costs could be roughly 1/2 the going price in the stores? Where will the tipping point be when the agricultural land is more valuable for food crops than equine crops? That may be real value of the PDR program.

I have seen how some of these "progressives" have brought in officials from other cities ,where there has been some modicum of success, to explain their methods. The situations and conditions are never the same in all cities, even during good economic times, so the results will always be different. It is the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" in action. Those same officials, operating in differing cities, would not have fared as well as a general rule.

Our city leaders of the past few decades(especially from the '70s) have failed to secure the infrastructure and facilities to ensure the basic necessities of life; sufficient potable water, locally generated energy or alternative power sources, locally available food sufficient for all residents... and we have known that the day is coming. As we have seen with RWE and now E.on, the divestiture of the global corporations controlling utilities (and probably soon with food) is coming.

Where will these new leaders take us in this "Great Reset"? That is the line of questioning that should be taking place. Had I sent them in by social media, they would not have been asked and had I been there in person, I would have been considered as "off the wall" as Skip Horine.

When Will We Try To Be Better?

One of the things that has perturbed me about the City-Data forum that I frequent is the propensity of the "local experts" to reply to posts with answers to questions that weren't asked. One of the most common ploys is to respond to queries about things to do in Lexington ,other that the usual college pub crawls and night spots, with a typical "Head to Louisville" or "Go to Cincinnati". Those two cities are always touted as being much better than Lexington and the so called "experts" have usually come from somewhere else (and may have moved back).

But everything in larger cities is not always better.

The Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky area does have a lot going for it yet even they seem to fail to put all the pieces together. Cincinnati has resoundingly endorsed a streetcar line. It will run from downtown, through the Over-the-Rhine district and near the University of Cincinnati and then back downtown. Cincinnatians have wrangled federal funds to plan a Cross-Ohio high speed rail line as part of the Mid -West Initiative. And... there is nothing in between. No commuter rail, no regional rail, none of the other pieces that will make it all work, no seamless mass transportation across the area.

Louisville is not any farther along. Their airport is more centrally located and can be accessed by transit, but a city bus is no way to get to and from an airport. Commuter rail and regional rail is brought up on occasion but, other than trying to use existing rail facilities, nothing comes of it. And, a streetcar, why I think that Kentuckians would rather walk than go back to streetcars.

These progressive communities have done little or no preparation work for the coming energy reset, where relying on a fossil fueled vehicle will be a crap shoot. I hear you say it-"We will be using electric autos, soon"- but it won't be soon enough to do any good.

For everyone to switch to an electric auto will be like everybody buying a $50 thousand car in the next couple of years, if they would be available. I don't see that happening any time soon.

Charging your car will take all night when utility rates are low(called off-peak rates), but if everybody is charging at that time then it becomes a peak generating and consumption time. There will be no off-peak rates. Charging your car while it is parked during the day(while at work presumably) will bring its own set of difficulties and extra parking fees. There will be no such thing as free parking.

Commute distances of more than 40 miles will be a thing of the past. Even with an auxiliary generating engine, a commute which would use both the electric charge and fossil fuel is counter productive. People will live closer to where they work and higher densities will mean even higher costs for the parking of a vehicle.

The larger, more progressive cities of Cincinnati and Louisville do have a lot going on for the average young professional-the so called "creative class"- yet the don't seem to be preparing for those that this class will need just a few years down the road. And I don't see Lexington doing any better.

Lexington should try to be less like theses progressive cities and more like a city that wants to be better than they are. When are going to begin?

America's Idea Of High Speed Rail

HNTB is a well known, employee owned, architecture and engineering consulting firm specializing in sports venues but also working in road/bridges, aviation and light rail. They also prepare and distribute, on line, a publication called THINK, and in that preparation conduct many opinion surveys. One of their latest concerns High Speed Rail.

New America THINKS survey results from HNTB Corporation illustrate transit and passenger rail remain top of mind after the Obama administration’s $8 billion high-speed rail grant announcement last month.

Nearly nine in ten (88 percent) Americans are currently open to high-speed rail travel for long-distance travel within the United States. While this is a strong majority, that support is down slightly from the 94 percent America THINKS recorded in March 2009.

This is much higher than I thought it would be and if I were a pessimist, I would swear that these were rosy liberal government projections. Don't get me wrong, I have been pushing (and dreaming of) High Speed Rail since the '70s, unfortunately, the federal money that could have (or should have) been spent on it was mandated for highways.

While general interest may have slowed, there’s still a great deal of support for passenger rail enhancements overall. More than four in five (83 percent) Americans agree public transit and high-speed rail infrastructure should receive a larger share of federal funding than they do now.

I guess my next question would have to be, Does congress know this? Then I realize that Congress doesn't care. There are no lobbyists from major corporations beating down their doors, throwing cash at them for their votes. Major corporations, the big three automakers and the large energy companies all realize that their fortunes could turn on a decision to increase mass transit opportunities in America.

Our American automakers at one time made what appeared to be obscene profits but in recent years have lost billions. Our trucking industry, at one point appeared to be choking the life out of America's freight railroads. The large oil companies are still raking in huge profits due to the world's unquenchable thirst for oil despite a demonstrated decline in availability. Even if you don't suscribe to the concept of Peak Oil, it is becoming clear that the way that thing were were simply not sustainable.

The American airline industry is imploding from similar problems of sustainability. The terror threats have only exacerbated the continuing delays encountered by the traveling public. An aging air control system and declining on-time performance figures posted by the airlines are making some people think twice about flying as a travel option. With a possible lack of available fuel (or at least much more expensive fuel) and few viable alternatives, airlines may be a dying industry except for coast-to-coast or overseas flights.

This may coincide with another study requested by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in California about the effects of High Speed Rail on the Bay Area. SH&E, a Virginia-based aviation firm has concluded that the three Bay Area airport could see a loss of 6 million passengers by 2035. That assumes that the system would be operational by 2020 AND that the airline industry will still be operating.

It is well documented that in Europe(particularly Spain) and China that the bullet trains have seriously eroded the airline industry's clientele. In America, even Amtrak's Acela service- a limited medium speed service- from New York to Washington has garnered approximately 62% of the traveling public between those two cities.

Lexington, of course, has been left out of any consideration for High Speed Rail, medium speed rail, commuter rail, regional rail or any other mode of mass transit in, around, or beyond the limited bus service that we have.

I tell you, we are going to have to start really thinking locally and begin to do some of these things for ourselves. Congress will only do it for those corporations who offer leverage. The idea of "government of the people, by the people and for the people" began to die shortly after Abraham Lincoln declared that it "should not perish from this earth". If we want it back, then we will have to take it back.

I wish us luck.

Economic Development With Sustainable Living

According to Neil Pearce "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s cautious if not hostile approach to climate control legislation isn’t just putting it at odds with the Obama administration.". I t may also be putting it at odds with its local organizations. It has certainly played a part in the decisions of national and international corporations like Pacific Gas and Electric and Apple to resign from the larger body.

The local Chamber, known locally as Commerce Lexington, is the entity usually chosen as the prime economic development arm of Lexington's leaders. What I'd like to know is, are they working with the Urban County Government to bring in the more environmentally conscious companies, or even is there an effort to work toward a climate controlled Lexington development scene. I don't necessarily believe that man is the cause of the recent climate changes or that the changes are irreversible. I don't even totally believe in the whole global warming scare theory, but the majority of the country's leading scientists do and yet I am not sure that I see our leadership working to do something about it. I do believe in the peak oil scenario(and the coming paradigm reset) and I certainly do not see any efforts to deal with what I see as arriving before any catastrophic effects of global warming. Our global economy may kill us all before global warming does.

A report from the Partners for Livable Communities details some of the local chambers around the country which have begun planning and doing projects in their hometowns all in the name of sustainability. Many of these chambers were in the southern and eastern US. Lexington was not on the list.

This is not just about global warming or peak oil or even reducing the outlandish per capita carbon footprint here in Lexington. It is about making and keeping Lexington a desirable place to raise a family. It will take dealing with each of the elements and making responsible choices when it comes to land use and transportation. How will we deal with our heat islands of parking lots and exhaust spewing autos? How will we reduce our use of fossil fuels, thereby leaving some for our children and grandchildren to use even more sparingly? How will we leave a more positive footprint on the Earth than our parents and grandparents did?

Where was our Commerce Lexington when we decided to expand the Urban Service Area in the mid-'90s. I think that they were right there helping to set the density targets for all the newly planned acreage. This was to be a new way of planning, a new way of looking at our fringe areas, more density in a more community center oriented setting. Now nearly fifteen years later, we look back and see that there are no community centers to which to orient and the density built that equals any development done prior to the expansion. We set the bar just above minimum and barely made it over the bar. Hooray for the status quo. And where is our Commerce Lexington these days? My bet is living right in the middle of that very expensive status quo, driving their luxury autos across town to work and leaving a larger carbon footprint than 75% of their employees.

So much for expecting a sustainable lifestyle in our economic development.

Thoughts On The Coming Reset

Earlier this month I posted about how I am not ready to face the coming lifestyle of $5+ fuel prices. I don't think that the rest of us are either. Wendy Waters of All About Cities then had this giving two scenarios possible for cities in the event of nearly $8 gas.

Wendy starts off with this interesting question.

Will the city be able to offer the housing, transportation options or amenities that its residents may prefer if fuel becomes a more expensive item relative to the family budget?

My question is "Will the city be able to provide enough housing or transportation that the population needs in the event of such a situation?". Will there be the expected new technologies and will they come with their own set of inherent problems, some of which will become evident as we get down the road(so to speak)?

I have started to become concerned that way too many of us have decided to live well beyond the reasonable commuting distance of the future. That and we have not put into place any good alternatives to the primary chosen mode of transportation, the automobile. Somehow , we have let ourselves be persuaded to separate ourselves from our sources of income by time and distance to the extent that now, reducing that gap may bring societal upheaval. The farther the distance the greater the possible upheaval.

Commerce has always followed the population, but in recent years, with the growth of "big box" mega-stores, the interval between commercial nodes has become bigger and the possibility of walking is nearing remote. This may be attributed to zoning as well as population growth. The original concept of zoning was to separate noxious uses from residential areas, but as we became accustomed to the idea, our definitions of what to separate became more and more strict. We are now nearly to the point of having walls between single-family and duplexes or townhouses.

In any case, the budget battle between housing costs and transportation costs, our two largest monthly outlays, will have to waged , much to the chagrin of the majority of our populace.

Suppose the Wendy's second scenario is what comes to be, how will we fare here in Lexington, Ky.? We will not have time to change all of our cars to burn alternate fuels, nor will we have the luxury of installing a meaningful mass transit system. Despite all the warnings and lead time(the gas crisis of the '70s) and the examples of the Europeans and Japanese, we have mostly believed that it just can't happen here. Will the re-purposing of our subdivisions work their way out in ripples of waves or from the outer edges in in a flood of more urban style development around our major roadway intersections? At that point, will those intersections become the new "civic centers" for the provision of necessary government services, the schools, the post office, the light rail station, much like the old corner store but on a larger scale?

I don't have any of these answers and Wendy, as well as I, is willing to hear your thought on this matter.

Are You Prepared? I Know I'm Not

Today's good read comes from the fine folks at the UK Energy Research Council. The ones in the original UK, the United Kingdom, not the guys at our University who are researching the removal of mountains for the molehill of energy. This council is looking at the depletion of the global oil supply and its effect on the world as we know it.

What does that have to do with us, we are Americans and Americans have always had all the oil they wanted. When we run low we will just go find more, we always have.

The following quotes (in red) are from the executive summary:

Abundant supplies of cheap liquid fuels form the foundation of modern industrial economies and at present the vast majority of these fuels are obtained from ‘conventional’ oil. But a growing number of commentators are forecasting a near-term peak and subsequent terminal decline in the production of conventional oil as a result of the physical depletion of the resource.

These modern global economies will only work if the supply of cheap liquid fuels continues to grow since there will be more of the "global" community desiring to cash in on the "global" economy. From what I see here the first thing that is growing is the number of people realizing that the oil supply is not growing. We are Americans, we created this economy and we can control it.

Many believe that this could lead to substantial economic dislocation...

Well, we as the world leaders will just have to help the rest of the world when this dislocation hits them. Besides I've heard that the oil that we know about will last into the middle of this century.

Despite much popular attention, the growing debate on ‘peak oil’ has had relatively little influence on energy and climate policy. Most governments exhibit little concern about oil depletion...

Lexington's government has not made any formal statements about their concerns toward "peak oil". They are quite vocal about preparing for the WEG, or some terrorist possibilities, or a natural disaster like a tornado or earthquake. Are they preparing for a catastrophic increase in fuel prices (or even better) a complete lack of supply of fuel for their emergency vehicles? Does Lexington have a "strategic fuel supply" hidden somewhere? My guess is ... NO.

While the global economic recession has brought oil prices down from their record high of July 2008, the International Energy Agency (IEA) is warning of a near-term ‘supply crunch’ owing to the cancellation and delay of many upstream investment projects. There is a growing consensus that the age of cheap oil is coming to an end.

So, if cheap oil is coming to an end, how are you preparing to face the thought of fuel prices that could be double the $4 a gallon that we saw back in 2008? Alternative fueled cars? Will there be enough alternative fuels available? Ethanol, algae, solar bio-diesel? I don't see very much of those ideas here in Lexington. If gas is that pricey, who gets it first? The police? Fire? Lextran? HSR? Airline travel will be curtailed completely because the military will have the jet fuel.

If you live more than 5 miles from your work place, how will you get to work? Honestly, I live just about 3/4 mile(as the crow flies) from a bus stop, but I am no crow. I have a bicycle and I am not as young as I once was, but I could get to work. Groceries could be a problem but we have tried it just to see if we could do it.

We Americans have suffered before and we got through it, besides this is all just speculation.

...the transition away from conventional oil will have important economic, environmental and security implications which need to be anticipated if the appropriate investments are to be made.

This is fairly plain. Regardless of the eventual "peak" of oil production some transition away form our current fuel sources will have to be planned for. The security implications spoken of will also be tantamount, for if wars are being fought over the present oil fields then they will also erupt over any alternative fuel production capabilities. Will intercity passenger rail travel be available before, during or after this transition period starts?

While the timing of a future peak (or plateau) in conventional oil production has been a focus of debate, what appears equally important is the rate at which production may be expected to decline following the peak and hence the rate at which demand reduction and alternative sources of supply may be required. In addition, there are uncertainties over the extent to which the market may be relied upon to signal oil depletion in a sufficiently timely fashion.

With so many uncertainties to be concerned with, it seem that we should be, at least, looking at some sort of planning changes so as to be more prepared for whatever comes our way. It is becoming more clear each day that the situation cannot keep going as it has for the past 80-100 years. Just as the world had to change from the "horse and buggy days" so too will we have to adjust from the world of an oil based global economy. Given the dearth of innovation being put forth on some sort of alternative fuel or power sources it looks like our creative class has its work cut out for it.

The report's listed conclusions are:

1. The mechanisms leading to a ‘peaking’ of conventional oil production are well understood and provide identifiable constraints on its future supply at both the regional and global level.

2. Despite large uncertainties in the available data, sufficient information is available to allow the status and risk of global oil depletion to be adequately assessed.

3. There is potential for improving consensus on important and long-standing controversies such as the source and magnitude of ‘reserves growth’.

4. Methods for estimating resource size and forecasting future supply have important limitations that need to be acknowledged.

5. Large resources of conventional oil may be available, but these are unlikely to be accessed quickly and may make little difference to the timing of the global peak.

6. The risks presented by global oil depletion deserve much more serious attention by the research and policy communities.

I think that these conclusions are proof enough that Lexington and the State of Kentucky need to begin talking about plans to mitigate the effects to their residents, whether we think that we need them or not. Everything should be on the table; mass transit, land use, urban farming, home occupations, greater density, you name it.

Remember, We are Americans and the rest of the world needs us more than we need them.

What might your thoughts be?

By the way there is a local blog on the "Peak Oil" situation in Lexington. I have a link to it in my blog list to the right side of the page. It is not much but you have to start somewhere.