Last month I read The Geography of Nowhere, which I thought was great. James Kunstler is funny at times by going a bit over the top, but the book had a great deal of good information, and not a few good ideas, such as the fixes necessary to many of the zoning policies and other outdated regulations.
If you wanted to get the overall point of the book (though you’ll miss out on the important detail), I thought this short New York Times video was pretty close in theme.
A key idea of SIT is the reuse of existing infrastructure; road, rail, even the automobile manufacturing infrastructure. That has the strength of lower investment cost, but it has the difficulty of requiring a transition plan. My experience in software architecture has taught me that transition plans are as difficult as they are powerful and important.
What would the transition from the present day transportation architecture to SIT be like? Many possibilities exist. What is more clear is some of the components of the transition.
Manufacturing is a key transition point. The separation of platform (drivetrain, engine, suspension and transmission), from passenger compartment could happen prior to widespread adoption for other reasons. Already today, automobile manufacturers design and build many models upon a common platform. The primary obstacles to the design and manufacture of a modular architecture like SIT, are the engine and transmission.
The size, shape and placement needs of the internal combustion engine put the engine above the “floor” level which makes integration and modularity possibilities more limited. Electric and fuel cell vehicles don’t have the same limitations.
The linkage of steering wheel, brakes and gas pedal to mechanical components presents another hard link between the upper vehicle and lower vehicle, this time extending into the passenger compartment. Drive-by-wire in addition to many other benefits solves this limitation.
The GM Hywire concept shows an example of not only how these two components would enable the separation, but also demonstrates the early motivations that would precede any SIT style system.
Three significant components are necessary for automation, software, control and sensors. Of these three components, control is the most difficult to retrofit. But, drive-by-wire also requires the same control components, and manufacturers are already using and trending toward drive-by-wire for other good reasons.
Software is a relatively minor retrofit, the primary difficulty being the possible need to upgrade the “computing” hardware at the same time. Considering the constantly shrinking size and cost of computing hardware it shouldn’t be difficult or expensive to install that either.
Sensors are likely to be the main cost of retrofits when undertaken. There are many types of sensors that are being built into cars today (wheel slip, accelerometers, etc.), but there are other sensors which are still expensive and don’t have the same general purpose utility. This may shift as “back-up” cameras and radar sensors are used for adaptive cruise control and automated parking features.
Reusing the asphalt and pavement already constructed is important for two reasons. One reason is it costs a lot of money and time to create all that physical infrastructure. Even more important than the actual asphalt and pavement is the physical space that lies underneath it, and it’s pervasive locality to where people live, work, play and shop. Even if you didn’t need the roads, you’d need space near the front doors of homes and businesses.
Three styles of road transition are zoned, side-by-side and interoperability.
Zoning is switching specific areas to fully automated. Likely first zoning candidates are parking and highly congested urban streets. Zoning has the advantage of being easy to administer internally once established. But, zoning is difficult to establish due to poor interoperability.
Zoning might be successful in urban areas that are already using vehicle bans or restrictions. For example, London restricts vehicle traffic in certain areas, either charging a fee, disallowing certain classes of vehicles, or other measures to discourage unnecessary vehicle usage. In areas like this, which may already be mostly public transit and taxis, a switch to SIT could occur. Taxis and public transit vehicles could be replaced in short order and still be usable in non-automated zones, and only personal with the necessary equipment would be allowed to enter. Other visitors would need to take public transit, or park outside the zone, which already occurs today.
Zoning might also be successful for parking. Certain garages or lots might require SIT equipment to use. Fees for these garages would be lower because they could obtain the compactness and efficiency of a valet parked garage, but without the costs of the valet employees. Convenience would be higher than valet or self park garages. Similar to valet garages, you could enter and exit your car at street level, not search for a space and not have to remember which row/section you parked in. But also, you would never find the attendants unavailable, you could “call-ahead” by messaging your vehicle to be ready, and you wouldn’t need to worry about your car being taken for a joy ride.
Side-by-side is division of lanes, or construction of extra lanes in and existing right of way, with some lanes automated, and some not. First side-by-side candidates are congested urban and suburban highways, and long haul highways.
Suburban and urban highways have large numbers of lanes and large amounts of traffic. Trips are somewhat short, but long enough that an automated system can be used for part of the travel in special lanes. Automated lanes should be faster, more convenient, safer and able to sustain higher densities per lane than non-automated lanes.
Long haul highways are often only two lanes, but entrances and exits are minimal, and truck traffic is high. It’s likely that trucking companies would be eager adopters once technical and legal requirements are met. Employing drivers is a significant costs, and trucking companies would be sensitive to any opportunity to reduce those costs. Trucks could be automated, and transported without a driver (except for hazardous materials or other loads that would still require supervision.) from one trucking “switchpoint” to another. At switchpoints drivers would take over incoming trucks and drop off outgoing trucks. Truck drivers could work 9-5, and be home to their families every night, yet still handle ten times as many loads per month.
One advantage of side-by-side is that lanes can be transitioned in stages. For example, a transition might start with one of six lanes. As availability of SIT equipped vehicles expands, two lanes might be used, and so forth tile the final lane is switched when all or nearly all vehicles are SIT equipped. They only work well when entrances and exits are at a reasonable level though, so streets with intersections, and even some highways may not be compatible.
Interoperability requires automated vehicles to operate simultaneously in the same lanes and/or intersections as non-automated vehicles. Interoperability is more difficult in technical terms, but if successful is applicable to any area, including rural and suburban streets.
Interoperability is the “holy grail” so to speak of transition. It’s great in concept, but difficult or at least expensive to achieve. The DARPA urban challenge shows promise for the possibilities, but even after interoperability is achieved, the other transition styles deserve consideration and use as they will continue to have edges in safety and efficiency when used appropriately.
Interoperability technology is important to go the final mile. Rural roads are single lane, and will have things like cows, tractors and such on them for a long time. Rural roads could potentially be left non-automated without harming the viability of widespread adoption, as long as manual control remains available in all vehicles. But not presenting an automation solution for suburban roads would likely undermine the universal adoption desired.
Every transition effort will encounter resistance. Sometimes the reasons are valid, though unbalanced against the positive benefits, sometimes they are founded only on fear, sometimes they are just misunderstandings.
One misunderstanding I’ve seen frequently is the idea that an automated system would prevent individuals from choosing a navigation path. An automated system would be able to accommodate requests like, “drive by the lake”, “don’t take the expressway”, “turn right at the next corner”.
Another misunderstanding, mixed with fear, is safety. Computers do crash, and I doubt an automated transportation system would be entirely flawless, but it would greatly exceed the safety of human drivers. Over 42,000 people in the U.S. die each year from an auto-accident. That’s a big number, but given the number of miles driven is perhaps not so large. But what saves occupants lives is not the astounding driving skills of drivers, but the massive amount of safety features in every car. Each year, there are over 6.4 million highway accidents, which result in more than 2.5 million non-fatal injuries. Those are huge numbers. Nearly 1% of the U.S. will be injured each year, and more than 2% involved in an accident. The technology to develop zoned or side-by-side systems with vastly lower accident rates exists today, and if the DARPA urban challenge is any indication, interoperable technology is not far away.
Today, EcoGeek made a mistake by supporting a per-mile driving tax. I’ve previously pointed out how bad this idea is.
I thought I’d add an additional comment in response to the thought that a per-mile tax would be more fair. For those driving guzzlers (who would benefit), why not consider the destructive cost of your guzzler and how fair it is to pay absolutely nothing for that privilege.
If that’s not convincing, consider the billions of dollars that go into road construction above and beyond gasoline taxes. In 2004, according to the Federal Highway Administration
“taken together, all levels of government spent $147.5 billion for highways“
yet,
Note, the emphasis that the expenditures do not even include local roads. Where does the rest of that money come from? Well for highways alone,
Give me back my $50+ billion dollars, please, and fund some public transit.
For more information:
A recent trend with SUV, Minivans and other large vehicles has been the addition of television displays, usually for the purpose of watching movies. Today’s cars have several limitations that make that experience limited.
Number one, the driver. Cars, even those cars, only have one occupant much of the time, and watching a movie while you drive is.. not a good idea. An unfortunate side effect of needing a driver is needing a clear glass windshield. Theater’s are usually configured with one large screen in front of the audience, but the prime real estate for a screen is needed for the much more important task of observing the road. Ah, the tragedy.
Spaces configured for watching a movie, the morning news, or other programming would be a popular a part of a SIT model line. That means eyeballs, and while I’m not a big fan of the pervasiveness of advertising, or it’s purpose of promoting extreme consumerism, theater spaces entertainment is likely to be partly subsidized by advertising just like conventional entertainment. Also, some interesting opportunities exist unique to a moving vehicle.
Location based advertising could highlight stores, restaurants that are either nearby, or on the way. I suspect that would be a big hit with advertisers, and it may reduce vehicle miles driven too.
More interesting is a new type of entertainment that utilizes the surrounding through which you are traveling. The windshield could be translucent LCD used to overlay a tour display. It might highlight landmarks and history, though that would be fairly boring for a daily commute. Highlighting recent events could fix that.
It could be part of an interactive game, which is somewhat scary because it might get used even when you didn’t need to travel. Hopefully that phase will be a short lived fad, similar to geocaching.
Not every possibility will take off. One of the more unrealistic of which I’ve heard, is the cars based “social network”, which lets you chat with people in nearby cars. I can’t personally see any use for knowing who’s in a nearby car unless by chance they are a friend I’d like to catch up with, akin to bumping into them on foot. If I saw a friend nearby while heading to a store or some other non-time sensitive travel, I might suggest a quick stop for a face to face hello. But meeting new people just because they are temporarily nearby? Seems unlikely to catch on, and more likely that people will continue to rely more on where a person lives, works or hangs out as the location component of selecting new people to meet.
A good leader can tell you that encouragement is a subtle process. One size does not fit all. Not only do different people need different incentives, and different outcomes need different incentives, but different combinations of people and outcomes need different incentives.
Knowing this, it’s interesting to watch attempts to reapply the latest hot incentive system to every problem. The X-Prize incentive system is the latest hot item. While it makes sense in some cases, it doesn’t in others.
Prize incentives work for one-off creations, not mass production. Only one (or very few) lunar landers are necessary. The software for a robotic car needs only be written once (and tuned/enhanced thereafter). But to save gasoline and lower emissions, you need hundreds of millions, or even billions of high mpg cars, not one 100 mpg car.
An X-Prize for a 100mpg car would generate some ideas. The already existing automotive X-Prize already is. But I don’t expect this type of incentive to result in a production ready, marketable car, much less actually get millions of them on the road. Reading the contest rules for the existing rules (PDF) show many of the difficulties. In order to make the incentive at all valuable, a number of bars have been raised very high. 100mpg is no easy. The real difficulty is:
“Vehicle cost at a production rate of 10,000 units per year must be within levels that the market is likely to bear.”
Honestly, depending on the judge, that’s an immensely difficult standard to meet without any other requirements. A winner must have a car that they can prove will sell at least 10,000 units per year, and do so at a profit. Assuming the car would sell somewhere between $25,000 and $75,000, that is a market between 250 and 750 million dollars per year. A $25 million dollar prize seems paltry in comparison.
So would raising the prize to a billion dollars help? Oh maybe, but what if we do? We need millions of cars, not 10,000 per year. And even if a judge decides 10,000 people would line up to buy the winner’s car, doesn’t mean they actually will. And what if someone other than one of the established automobile manufacturers win? It’s likely even with a billion dollars in pocket that they would have significant difficulty in avoiding the anti-competitive behavior of their the established manufacturers and their lobbies and actually getting to market.
Short version, if you want to get millions of more efficient cars on the road, incentive that goal directly through taxes and/or tax breaks on the individual vehicles. Raise the CAFE numbers. Or reform CAFE’s flaws. Or best yet, use a gas tax instead. All of these would produce results much sooner and much more broadly.
As 2007 comes to an end, it’s appropriate to look back at success. Most recently, I’ve succeeded in replacing some more incandescent light bulbs.
Mildly surprisingly were year over year comparisons of my father’s electric bill: a 15% reduction in cost despite a 25% hike per kwh for generation service due to a 25% reduction in usage. We had replaced a bunch in incandescent’s, one old CRT monitor, and tweaked a few computer settings, but otherwise no changes. No new refrigerators, dishwashers, stoves or air conditioners. Likely the savings won’t be as great percentage wise in the summer, which we don’t yet have the data to compare, but it still looks like $250/year in savings, and about 2,500kwh.
I’ve persuaded a few more people to try CFL’s too; my two brothers, two coworkers, an aunt and uncle, and a cousin. Hopefully this blog has reached a few too, but I can’t say for certain.
A big success, was the November Step it Up event, which a group I’m part of helped organize. Almost 200 people came, exceeding expectations by a fair margin.
The group itself (Chicago Global Warming Meetup) is going well too. We are resetting after November, and taking some time to do it due to the holidays, but it’s very promising.
In a far less personal sense, 2007 has had it’s share of successes in the U.S. Congress. The other day, the 2007 energy bill was signed by President Bush. While some compromises were made to get it passed, that bill is a notable step. Vehicle efficiency standards are up significantly (35mpg target).
Lightbulb efficiency is required to increase by 2012. Oddly, they only set the standard as 50%, when existing CFLs already achieve 75%. I doubt that detail will matter since it is unlikely a 50% bulb will emerge or be chosen by consumers. Consumers buy incandescents because they are accustomed to them, so I’m sure if they are forced to make a switch it will generally be to CFLs or LEDs. Also notable in a section, "Consumer Education and Lamp Labeling", which instructs the Federal Trade Commission to use:
"labeling approaches that will help consumers to understand new high-efficiency lamp products"
About one hundred million per year has been appropriated for smart grid development, two hundred million for support of energy efficiency in developing countries, two hundred forty million for carbon capture and sequestration.
Illinois has been disappointing. Not only has the mass transit funding issue still not been resolved, but little of note has been accomplished by our legislators there.
At work, I’ve made some changes in computer configuration, though I’m still waiting for them to get set as the standard practice across the company, and still hoping for double sided printing to become the default. Maybe most importantly, I’m waiting for Wake-On-Lan support.
I’ve got a couple of other personal projects still on the table. My apartment building needs a recycling program and needs to start having a policy of replacing in-unit lights with CFLs. They currently use CFLs in the hallways and offices, but still install incandescent’s in the units themselves. It’s somewhat amazing that they do, because in this building electric is included in the rent. The building/equipment is too old to meter each unit, so the waste from the in-unit incandescent’s is borne by the rental company.
I’m not the only one thinking about systems like SIT.
Early progress within the next 5 years from NY Times
"breezing along an expressway, inching along in stop-and-go traffic, or parking in the lot at a mall or airport after dropping off the driver."
Battery progress, 10 times capacity.
"produces 10 times the amount of electricity of existing lithium-ion …"
Slow reactions = Slow traffic.
"The main issue is around the smoothness of traffic flow. According to the model, heavy traffic will not automatically lead to congestion but can be smooth-flowing. This model takes into account the time-delay in drivers’ reactions, which lead to drivers braking more heavily than would have been necessary had they identified and reacted to a problem ahead a second earlier."
"The research team now plans to develop a model for cars equipped with new electronic devices, which could cut down on over-braking as a result of slow reactions."
Heathrow to install a Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) system.
"It appears to solve the often-encountered problems of mass public transit, including fixed timetabling – leading to long waiting times and queues, restricted routes and shared travel space."
One of the best things about a new car is reliability. Since you know that no irresponsible driver has abused the car, things should go smoothly. But cars don’t stay new, mistakes happen and not everyone can afford a new car.
A great thing about SIT would be the "commoditization" of reliability. Most of the important things that could break are part of the "platforms". The engine, the transmission, the suspension. As a modular system, if one platform breaks, even while in use, it is replaceable almost immediately. There’s no need to take the car in for repairs, no need to wait for a tow truck, no need to even perform regular maintenance like oil changes. All a SIT user would need to do is choose between the service provider with 99.99% reliability and 99.999% reliability.
SIT is about more than efficiency, it’s also about a better transportation experience. The flexibility of SIT would accommodate personalized spaces. Consider your morning commute (assuming your have one). How would you like to spend that time?
Biking is a common choice, and a great one at that. But the weather can get nasty. A SIT space could include an stationary cycle to get a morning workout, without the weather, with higher speed, and more safety. It would be hard for SIT to be more efficient than biking, but the electrical energy generated by exercise could be captured and returned. A more interesting concept is the alternatives, such as rowing machines. You can’t, as far as I know, row to most workplaces. But rowing is a more complete workout than biking, and rowing has a higher energy output.
For the less active, other options would be available. How about a bit of extra sleep? I hope you don’t do that when driving to work. Or how about breakfast?
The normal options for train/bus exist too, you could read a book or the newspaper. In a spacious train seat (commuter rail as opposed to subway style), you can catch up on email. Those wouldn’t require any special SIT space of course. Neither would a phone call, which is .. frowned upon while on public transportation, and illegal in many states from a car, but widely practiced still.
As a thought, consider this scenario. You’ve just been elected President of the United States, with a supportive congress. But in the 6 months prior to election, U.S. oil daily oil supplies have halved.
World oil production has been in decline for some time, but the U.S., through economic power has until recently managed to outbid developing countries like China in most contests, and thus U.S. supplies had met demand consistently. But a recent sudden drops in production from several U.S. fields and fields two main import sources, caused enough instability in the U.S. financial system that the bidding war shifted enough that the U.S. lost several key contracts and will now feel the shortages the rest of the world has been feeling for some time.
I pose this scenario for two reasons. One I’d like you to think about what you’d do in such a scenario. What would priorities be? How far and where would you go?
The second reason is, after you’ve thought about what you’d do is a situation like above, think about how much easier, and less disruptive the things we could do now are.
Recent Comments