“Urban planning guru says driverless cars won’t fix congestion,” says the New York Times. Naturally, the Times is referring to Peter Calthorpe, one of the few people who might be considered an urban planning guru and the one who has the most to lose if driverless cars are successful.
In the 1980s, Calthorpe developed a vision of what cities should be like. That vision combined the five-story apartments in Greenwich Village, which was built in the 1890s and praised in Jane Jacobs’ 1961 book, the Death and Life of Great American Cities, with the idea of jobs and dense housing being located in regional and town centers scattered around the urban area, which was the way cities were built in the 1920s. Each of the centers, Calthorpe thought, would be walkable like Greenwich Village and the centers would be connected with one another by mass transit such as light rail.
In other words, Calthorpe’s vision was already 60 to 90 years out of date when he thought it up. It is even more out of date today. In most urban areas, only about 30 percent of jobs are located in various centers, with the other 70 percent scattered finely across the landscape and virtually inaccessible to mass transit.
Of course, Calthorpe decries the modern city as “sprawl.” Now, driverless cars come along and Calthorpe sees that they are likely to promote even more sprawl and threaten his vision. Contrary to the New York Times article, Calthorpe admits (in an article written last year in Urban Land) that driverless cars will allow people to escape congestion by living further away from urban centers — more sprawl.
There is cialis super viagra no reason to doubt his service as Chiropractor because as a professional, Edward M. check that cialis 10 mg Its longer effect that is 36 hours of effect. It is to be taken with the help of water but an hour prior to making love with bought that levitra generika the partner. Nevertheless, there is sildenafil online canada nothing spare about them.
For Calthorpe, autonomy is acceptable only if it reinforces, not threatens, his vision. So he supports driverless buses and driverless rapid transit. Such larger vehicles make sense only if most people and jobs are located in the downtowns and centers on which Calthorpe has built his career. Which means they don’t make sense at all for most people in today’s cities, regardless of Calthorpe’s wishful thinking.
Calthorpe argues that the advent of driverless cars will result in more single-occupancy and zero-occupancy vehicles congesting his regional centers. But that will happen only if those centers get to be more important than they are today. If instead the centers decline in importance, which has been the trend for the last seventy or so years, then there should be plenty of room for the vehicles people need to transport themselves to their well-distributed jobs, shops, and other destinations.
The one thing we know about driverless cars is that no one really knows all of the effects they will have on our cities. Maybe they will really reduce congestion in dense areas by reducing delays at intersections and thus lead to a revitalization of some of those centers. Maybe they will enable more people to escape the growth restrictions set by planners that have made housing so expensive. Maybe something completely different will happen. The Antiplanner will be happy no matter what the result so long as gurus like Calthorpe aren’t given the power to try to impose their archaic visions on everyone else.
Calthorpes vision empairment fails to see the number of people who wanna live in “Greenwich Village” vs how much space Greenwich possesses…five story buildings means five families or people per building. Unless you put up midrises or skyscrapers…you’re SOL housing wise.
skyTran is a Personal Rapid Transit system concept first proposed by inventor Douglas Malewicki in 1990, and under development by Unimodal Inc. Lightweight two-passenger vehicles suspended from elevated line. The system uses passive magnetic levitation tracks and are expected to achieve the equivalent of 200 mpg electric equivalent. Unimodal is now collaborating with NASA, and a prototype is under construction in Israel. The basic argument should be “If were gonna replace the car, why do it with something that’s only better than the car”. While I remain skeptical, I’m enthused by the idea. Namely that skytran is automated control with spacing as well. Reliance Industries a 60 billion dollar company has bought a stake in the system. Whether this idea pans out….we’ll see. While automated maglev people pods may seem zany, but the Antiplanner has utmost faith that an automotive fleet will operate on the same technology. Automotive challenges give prizes for high mpg vehicles. They’ve built prototypes that get over 1000 mpg, building vehicles that get over 100 mpg isn’t difficult However it could never be safe on a street surrounded by far larger and heavier vehicles. Elevated tracks would allow a very light vehicle to be safe. They are also basic to the system’s inexpensiveness, because there is no need to acquire a huge right of way and tear down buildings. According to calculations, the system costs 1/10th that of light rail. Giving cities the opportunity to potentially afford this infrastructure unlike light or heavy rail. Elevating the pods adds a new dimension literally by bypassing traffic.
I don’t think driverless cars will solve congestion either…Even if you triple highway capacity without more lanes. Cities are geographically limited to how many vehicles fit on city streets. Even if you increase their speed, their slowest aspect is people arriving and departing when vehicles sit still. Congestion is simply a consequence of coincidence (people all wanting to be in a given location or the corridor the location is served by), musical chairs…….when 10 people vie for 9 seats someones gonna fall on their ass or just have to stand and wait. Thats basic physics, Two objects cannot occupy the same space.
Driverless cars to non existent jobs :$
“In most urban areas, only about 30 percent of jobs are located in various centers, with the other 70 percent scattered finely across the landscape and virtually inaccessible to mass transit.”
Only because it has been planned that way. There is nothing to stop jobs being concentrated.
“The one thing we know about driverless cars is that no one really knows all of the effects they will have on our cities.”
That’s easy. None whatsoever.
The development of driverless cars will produce offshoots, much as racing cars have given us safety devices on cars. Regular cars will incorporate the technology which is cost effective, leaving driverless cars as a ‘look ma, no hands’ stunt.
Driverless cars will save tens of thousands of lives and will create new, high-paying jobs. What’s not to like?
Regular cars will incorporate the technology which is cost effective, leaving driverless cars as a ‘look ma, no hands’ stunt.
The horse is here to stay, but the automobile is only a novelty-a fad.
—Advice from a president of the Michigan Savings Bank to Henry Ford’s lawyer Horace Rackham. Rackham ignored the advice and invested $5000 in Ford stock, selling it later for $12.5 million.
LazyReader supports “pod cars,” otherwise known as “Automated Guideway Transit” (AGT) or more accurately as “Personal Rapid Transit (PRT).” This is a bad idea that just won’t die despite many shortcomings with the concept as discussed by experts. Gökçe Günel, for example, explained why Masdar City’s PRT is an “Expensive Toy.” (see https://www.citylab.com/life/2014/09/personal-rapid-transit-is-probably-never-going-to-happen/380467/)
Steven Hauser explains that PRT is “a 40-year-old concept for a system of autonomous vehicles that can go to multiple destinations on demand, on a track or guideway. Techo-cultists are fascinated by it – a Jetsonesque technology that has its own German joke word, “gadgetbahn.” Like most cults, it has a core of true believers and the more sinister quacks and scammers that prey upon them. Right wing nutcases back the PRT technology movement; they know it will never be built and PRT proposals can block or dismantle real public transit infrastructure and systems. Occasionally, left wing fantasy loonies who want to transform the world into a Futurama cartoon back PRT schemes. All the PRT backers say ‘if only’ – ‘if only there were politicians to back a real big system it would work; if only there were funding; if only ….’” (See http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hause011/article/prt.html)
Fabien and Young explain that “PRT promoters speak in the conjectural tones of ‘could’ and ‘would’. Or ‘can’ and ‘will’. After 50 years of such conversations, we cannot truthfully state in the present tense: PRT satisfies urban transport needs. At best, we can point to West Virginia University, which is served by a USDOT demo from the 1970s and a few recent shuttles overseas.” (see http://www.podcar.org/News/2016/05/prts-conundrum-why-thebusiness-case-for)
The folks in Minnesota had to deal with this, as you can read in the PRT Boondoggle blog (http://prtboondoggle.blogspot.com/).
PRT only seems to get built in niche areas, such as airports or planned communities with car restrictions. Author Eric Jaffe points out that “though the concept has been around for half a century, only five completed systems in the world can be reasonably defined as personal rapid transit: those in Morgantown, West Virginia, which opened in 1975; Rotterdam in The Netherlands (1999); Masdar City in Abu Dhabi (2010); Heathrow Airport in London (2011); and Suncheon Bay in South Korea (2014). While there’s been a noticeable uptick in the past 15 years, four projects in that span is still, in the report’s own words, ‘not enough to claim that there is an active market sufficient to support an industry.'” (see https://www.citylab.com/life/2014/09/personal-rapid-transit-is-probably-never-going-to-happen/380467/)
This topic has been discussed at length. I recommend a couple of articles on the Light Rail Now website.
First, there’s “Let’s Get Real about Personal Rapid Transit,” by Ken Avidor (http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_prt001.htm). He points out that “PRT has a solid 30-year record of failure. Its main purpose in recent years seems to have been to provide a cover enabling its proponents to spread disinformation about real, workable transit systems.” (delete altogether if you need more space.
“The unsubstantiated claims of PRT proponents are always presented in the present tense as if the system is a proven success … which, of course, it certainly is not. Promoters never seem to fail to bash real transit, such as light rail (LRT), as ‘old-fashioned technology.’ Sadly, the media rarely check the veracity of PRT publicity and propaganda.”
A longer, more technical article is “Cyberspace Dream Keeps Colliding with Reality” (http://lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_prt001.htm). The authors write, “Despite the persistent and fervent claims of its promoters, repeated attempts to implement a working PRT system, even in very small-scale scenarios, have invariably failed. Not a single PRT plan, during these promotional efforts over the past 40 years or more, has seen successful implementation even in a small test application, much less a major, heavy-duty, citywide rapid transit application. Early would-be PRT installations, such as the AirTrans system at Dallas-Ft. Worth Regional Airport, and the PRT at West Virginia University at Morgantown, eschewed any attempt to provide true PRT-style, small-vehicle, customized origin-destination service, and were implemented in effect as line-haul automated guideway transit (AGT) peoplemover systems with some innovative features (such as offline stations).”
And finally, the good folks at Light Rail Now have put up a helpful list of links to various Monorail, PRT, AGT and “Gadget Transit” analyses at http://lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_monorail.htm.
A good article by Setty and Demery points out that, “In our view, it is a big waste of time advocating such ‘gee-whiz’ options, given the severe limits of monorails and similar technologies such as PRT, when U.S. transportation problems are almost always sociopolitical and economic ‘not technical’ in nature.” (see https://www.planetizen.com/node/70)
PRT combines the worst attributes of the car, low vehicle capacity, with the worst attributes of transit, expensive guideways. Back to the drawing board.
The one thing we know about driverless cars is that no one really knows all of the effects they will have on our cities.
One effect AVs will have on older city neighborhoods with alleys is more housing. The street in front of my house is 30′ wide including parking on both sides. There’s an additional 8′ adjacent land on each side that divides the street from the sidewalk. 30 + 8 + 8 = 46. With AV’s there would be no need for parking in the neighborhood and since the alley provides vehicle passage, that entire 46′ width of land could be used for housing. Even providing 10′ of land on each side between the sidewalk and the new house yields a house with a 26′-wide footprint. My block has 12 houses per side, so eliminating the street would allow 12 new houses per block.
I never said I supported PRT or pod cars….I simply said the technology had some merit.
Right now Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) contracted to build a 500 meter elevated loop test track on IAI’s campus in central Israel. If the pilot project is successful, IAI will build a commercial skyTran network in the city of Tel Aviv. If the system fails it’ll be another notch in the annals in transportation history. If it succeeds it may prove useful.
“There is nothing to stop jobs being concentrated.”
Except, maybe, people choosing to not work there.
Note that Peter Calthorpe like many “smart growth” planners is a hypocrite as apparently he lives in a single family home with a garden in north Berkeley. About 10 years ago at a public planning forum I asked a panel of four smart growth advocates what included Calthorpe to state their house size, size of lot and number of miles they put on their car every year. Calthorpe was speechless.
Another planner admitted he had moved from a single home in Rockridge area of Oakland to Lafayette (California) because of better schools. However he still had the single family home in Rockridge and planned to move back there someday. Note it was not a multi family dwelling.
The other two planners declined to answer.
About five years ago I asked Calthorpe at another planning presentation he was giving the same question. This time he exploded in anger saying that just because some people lived in single family homes didn’t mean that there wasn’t a market for “smart growth”. Other attendees told me later they were shocked at his reaction and considered it unreasonable. Of course if there is a market for “smart growth” why does it have to be zoned and then subsidized?
I would encourage others to point out this hypocrisy on the part of many planners and encourage the type of growth people are actually willing to pay for and not be coerced into.
Lazy reader: ‘I’m enthused by the idea.”
sounds like support to me.
I fully expect to have a driverless car right after I get a jet pack. Given that the top 10 cities for job growth in 2017 are the opposite of transit oriented, we on’t see cities grow much diffeenet wih or without driverless cars. At least that ‘s my two bites worthl.
@hugh
There’s a difference between enthusiasm and alimentation. I should have used the word curiosity instead.
Israel is the Silicon Valley of the MidEast, more technological progress comes out of that New Hampshire sized piece of real estate than anywhere else in that desert dump. If they’re investing some semblance of verbal support and if it fails, it’ll end just like that.
I don’t want to insult CapitalistRoader by accusing them of actually believing what they wrote.
“With AV’s there would be no need for parking in the neighborhood and since the alley provides vehicle passage, that entire 46? width of land could be used for housing.”
You honestly believe people are going to pay to park their AV 5-10 miles in some lot somewhere? You really think people are gonna wait 20 minutes for their car to show up when they want it?
Alleys are in no way adequate. Bring up your idea with the local police, fire, and utility departments. Make sure to take video of them laughing at you.
Such an idea already exists, we call them “3rd world slums”.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/the-dream-of-driverless-cars-is-dying/
If the more extreme claims were to be believed, we would already be adapting to the new reality of driverless cars. And what a reality it is supposed to be. We are told by the likes of Uber and Waymo, Google’s autonomous vehicles wing, that we will forego our individual cars for the delights of being transported in driver-less, shared-use electric vehicles reminiscent of the new dockless hire bikes or car–sharing companies like Zipcar. This is a strange conflation of three separate revolutions, electric, shared use and driverless, each of which on its own would have enormous societal impact and yet are presented by the tech companies and some politicians as desirable and inevitable. In truth, all three concepts are fraught with obstacles, not least the shortage of battery capacity in the world, people’s natural desire to own their own vehicles, and everyone’s understandable hesitance about putting their lives in the hands of a computer.
“everyone’s understandable hesitance about putting their lives in the hands of a computer.”
Not everyone
And you put your lives at the “hands” of computer every time you fly.
I don’t want to insult CapitalistRoader by accusing them of actually believing what they wrote.
I’m not quite sure what that means. Who’s them ?
This is a strange conflation of three separate revolutions, electric, shared use and driverless…
I agree, there’s no need to conflate any of them. AVs are a no-brainer. AVs will likely be at least an order of magnitude safer than human drivers and as such insurance companies will start demanding rates an order of magnitude higher for people who cling to driving their own cars over people who let the car drive itself the majority of the time. No doubt that this will start occurring within the next ten years.
Shared use might be combined with AVs, especially in dense urban areas. It will cost much less (1/2?) to belong to a car service vs. owning a car. As such car ownership will probably drop dramatically in city centers. Finally, unless battery technology improves (or battery swaps become very fast), and considering their high duty cycle, shared AVs will almost certainly be powered by hybrid ICE/electric powerplants.
”
Not everyone
And you put your lives at the “hands” of computer every time you fly.
”
Exactly when and where did you fly where there were not one but 2 skilled human pilots?
Waymo Can Finally Bring Truly Driverless Cars to California
Wired | 30 Oct 2018
…The outfit that started life as Google’s self-driving car project has been running driver-free cars in Arizona for almost a year, where the state testing rules are far more lax than in California, and where it plans to launch a commercial robo-taxi service by the end of the year. But securing the right to do the same in its home state is still a milestone, and evidence it can win over even comparatively wary regulators to the way of the robot.
…
To receive this first-of-its-kind permit, established by rules California introduced earlier this year, Waymo had to:
-Demonstrate it had insurance or a bond equal to $5 million.
-Come up with plans that would help law enforcement and first responders interact with the driverless cars in the case of an emergency.
-Train “remote operators”—workers hired to help the vehicles out of trouble from afar.
-Prove it could monitor the status of test vehicles and the passengers inside them from afar.
-Show that it complied with federal rules about car design, or that it had received official exemption from the federal government.
-Certify its vehicles could operate without a driver.