This past year has been very good for antiplanners. In February, the Antiplanner had an op ed in National Review opposing high-speed rail that summarized years of research on the subject. The Antiplanner also argued that Florida was the linch pin of President Obama’s planned national high-speed rail system.
Just a week after the National Review op ed, Florida Governor Rick Scott decided to kill the state’s high-speed rail plan. While the timing was coincidental, the Tampa Bay Times, among others, credited Cato, Reason, and Heritage with persuading Governor Scott to kill the project. Of course, the real victor was the Florida Tea Party.
In May, Florida set another precedent when it repealed the state’s growth-management law. The Antiplanner has long argued that this law made housing unaffordable and resulted in Florida’s housing bubble.
Also in May, the Cato Institute published the Antiplanner’s paper deriding tax-increment financing as a form of crony capitalism that actually slowed the growth of cities that used it. Just a month later, California Governor Jerry Brown managed to convince the state legislature to repeal that state’s pioneering tax-increment finance law.
In June, Cato published the Antiplanner’s paper documenting the growth of intercity bus service, which is taking place without significant subsidies and in many places provides faster, more frequent service than Amtrak at far lower fares. Many others, most recently the Washington Times, have since noted the contrast between this growth and the Obama administration’s failed high-speed rail plans, which would have required hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies.
Near the end of the year, the Antiplanner argued in an op ed in the Detroit News that a proposed light-rail line was a bad idea for the Motor City. Less than a week later, Michigan and Detroit leaders cancelled the project. Again, the timing was no doubt coincidental, but the trend is clear: increasing numbers of people in Michigan and elsewhere see federally funded transit programs as more of a burden than a benefit.
Here are some of the more common ones: Sildenafil Citrate: the core component of medication like purchase cheap levitra and Kamagra. Thus, throwing stress out of your life is essential part for every human being. cialis samples online Heuristic spam cialis 5 mg see this filters: These spam filtration programs figure out the tendencies of spam senders and reject messages for a variety of factors. If you are suffering from ED then you can easily overcome it by using this product 20-30 minutes before price for viagra downtownsault.org sex and enjoy its effectiveness for at least 5-6 hours.
Perhaps the Antiplanner’s most unusual project has been to promote driverless cars, an idea that some thought was kooky when the Antiplanner first proposed it. Since publication of the Antiplanner’s book, Gridlock, which devoted an entire chapter to driverless cars, the state of Nevada has legalized them, one of the leading developers, Sebastian Thrun, has been featured at a TED conference and in the New York Times, and the idea has been endorsed by Business Week, the Huffington Post, and many others.
Most recently, a leading smart-growth activist has declared that self-driving cars will be the next transportation revolution and will greatly
change society. The high likelihood that driverless cars will be available soon takes away most of the arguments for high-speed rail, light rail, compact development, and many other planning ideas. But how many long-range regional transportation plans take this idea into consideration?
What’s in store for 2012? First up will be Congressional reauthorization of federal transportation spending. As previously documented in numerous Antiplanner posts, the reauthorization debate is between those who believe transportation should be funded out of user fees and those who want to subsidize their favored forms of transportation and restrict other forms. Although it appeared for a time that those who favored user fees (primarily Republicans) were caving to those who favored subsidies (primarily Democrats), indications now are that the Democrats are more interested in seeing a bill passed than in what is actually in the bill. So it is possible that the 2012 reauthorization could be another antiplanning victory.
The other big issue is growth management and whether other states will follow Florida’s precedent in repealing smart-growth laws that make housing unaffordable, something that is the focus of the Antiplanner’s new book, American Nightmare. While I don’t expect immediate results, it could be that the smart-growth programs are, like high-speed rail, ready to fall.
I spent sixteen years beating my head against the heavily subsidized and environmentally destructive Forest Service timber program, only to see that seemingly invincible program collapse in two or three years. I then turned to smart growth and rail transit, which I’ve now been fighting for sixteen years. It would be nice to think that this regime, too, is about to collapse. If it does, it won’t be because of me, as my work on both Forest Service timber and smart growth has only been as one of many people challenging these misguided programs. Still, I’ll be happy to have made a contribution.
That leaves the question of where the Antiplanner, and this blog in particular, goes from here. The last year’s postings have felt tediously repetitious as I’ve hammered on light-rail follies, absurd land-use regulations, and similar programs. I need some new fields to toil in, as much to keep myself interested as to keep this blog interesting. Your suggestions are welcome.
The Antiplanner has long argued that this law made housing unaffordable and resulted in Florida’s housing bubble.
Stating something doesn’t make it true.
DS
Congrats on all the “wins.” A couple of observations: If we’re keeping score I think your loss column is a bit longer. Also, the phrase “user fee” is being tossed around quite liberally by antiplanners these days.
With so many local governments wallowing in financial trouble, this might be a good time to start pushing for legislation permitting existing neighbourhoods to privatize, as advocated by Bob Nelson.
Congratulations on the imminent anniversary of the blog!
Antiplanner: “I need some new fields to toil in, as much to keep myself interested as to keep this blog interesting. Your suggestions are welcome.”
My response:
As Han Solo once said to Luke Skywalker, “Don’t get cocky.” Until the California high speed rail program is really and truly dead, you’ll need to keep up the pressure.
Earlier in December 2011, the Palo Alto City Council called for ‘termination’ of high-speed rail as the City Council voted 8-0 to take its strongest position yet against $98.5 billion project which they supported in 2008:
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=23637
The council letter is here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=29736
The high speed rail continues to take flack in the media:
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_19634745
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_19627353
Unfortunately, despite all of the voices such as yours that point out flaws in this project, Governor Moonbeam and the CHSRA continue to push this project. You’ll have to bang the anti-CHSRA drum a little longer.
Whether the Antiplanner’s “victories” continue is a matter of conjecture, dependent on whether the Republicans continue their current course of political self-destruction. Even modest economic growth combined with a crazy or baggage-laden candidate like Gingrich–or a flip flopper like Romney–will guarantee Obama’s reelection.
The recent episode with the Republican House’ hedging regarding the “temporary” payroll tax cuts also has worked out dramatically in Obama’s favor. If the President can hang the meme around the Republicans’ neck, that their main goal has been to defeat his reelection even if means sabotaging the economy, then he may be able to bring back a Democratic House and save the Senate–building on growing public revulsion against the excesses of the Tea Party, Scott Walker et al. If the Democrats can retake the House, HSR and a lot of other things will be back from “the political dead,” with a vengeance.
I also strongly wish Ron Paul success in a third party run, since there’s no way the Republican Establishment will allow his nomination.
Actually, Hugh Jardonn, I think the fate of CAHSR depends on the Legislature to at least a degree as Brown. There are some key Democratic members who see the folly of the current direction. However, it is difficult to see what the outcome may be, though a significant number of Democrats are independent of Brown, at least on some issues.
Regarding the latest technological fetish of “self-driving cars” the best comment in the “New Urbanist” post cited by The Antiplanner (http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/12954/the-next-black-swan-for-transportation-self-driving-cars/) was the first in a long series of reactions:
A lot can happen in 100 years.
“…we don’t hear a peep from transportation planning organizations about how society will adapt and plan for this change, even though it seems increasingly imminent…”
A curmudgeon might argue that we won’t see “self-driving” cars at all–for the same reason we won’t see GPS-linked speed limiters. The hurdles involved are not technological ones.
As a card-carrying curmudgeon who cares more about people than the latest techno-fetish, I’ll work to see that this remains the case!
Whenever someone accuses transit, particularly rail, of being a “19th Century technology” that’s a sure sign of a technological fetishist. Never mind that concrete was a 2nd Century BC invention…no, the technological wonder will save our butts, and more importantly, prevent us from having to make changes in the way we do things. In the 21st Century U.S. that means saving things not worth saving, like the suburbs and excessive “happy motoring” as Kunstler puts it.
And, contrary to quasi-religious techno-fetishists like The Antiplanner or Brad Templeton (http://www.templetons.com/brad/robocars/, AI (“Artificial Intelligence” (sic)) is still nowhere near what is needed for the highly unpredictable human transportation environment. Self-driving vehicles may work on the battlefield as drones have in the air, but both environments are simple compared to your average city.
I hope msetty’s correct about independent legislators, but just in case any California residents should drop theirs a note such as this:
I write to you in response to a San Jose Mercury News editorial, which I urge you to read here:
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_19634745
As you’ll discover, the Mercury News, which supported the 2008 proposition which authorized high speed rail bonds, now opposed the project. This is due to the ballooning project costs and continuing dishonesty on the part of the California High Speed Rail Authority. The latest revelation is that claims that high speed rail would create a million jobs have been proven false. The Mercury explains “The 1-million figure came from the project’s technical studies. It actually was the number of “job years,” a statistical term that counts years of work rather than actual jobs. One person working for five years adds up to five job years in this parlance.â€
The high speed rail project now being pushed by the Governor and the High Speed Rail Authority is not the same project that the voters approved in 2008. The Authority is guilty of pulling a “bait and switch†on taxpayers, who live in a state in deep denial of its financial problems.
The City of Palo Alto, whose Council endorsed the 2008 high speed rail proposition, recently called for ‘termination’ of high-speed rail as they voted 8-0 to take its strongest position yet against $98.5 billion project which they supported in 2008:
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=23637
The City Council pointed out numerous flaws in the latest CHSRA “business plan. Please have a staff member do a thorough review of the contents:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=29736
Next year, you will be asked to authorize a bond sale to pay for the Central Valley segment. Please vote “NO†because CHSRA’s current project doesn’t deliver the benefits and costs promised to voters in 2008.
“Your suggestions are welcome.”
While it pains me to give you fodder, you may want to take a look at the Little Rock trolly/streetcar. Locally it’s known as the train to nowhere, from nowhere, that carries no one. It has also been involved in creating gridlock in downtown streets and as usual, it cost a pretty penny.
I’d also like to see more posts about what you advocate for instead as what you oppose. I think it would help the discussion to explore the roots of your free market zeal and hyper individualism. We can nitpick over this subsidy or that regulation, but on a deeper and broader level, what type of society do you want to see and how would you address (opposed to skirting) the criticisms of the libertarian/randian ideology?
I would also like to second msetty’s take on “techno-fetish” or as other have put it technological determinism. I don’t oppose new technologies such as driverless cars, but the idea that they will solve the most serious transportation issues of our time, as the antiplanner posts on the subject suggest, are misguided.
Bennett, the funny thing is that I think the most adamant opponents of self-driving cars will be car enthusiasts, particularly if there are moves to outlaw or severely restrict human-driven cars. If self-driving cars get that far–a BIG if–the likely political coalition between traditional car enthusiasts, walking, bicycling and transit advocates would be the oddest case of “strange bedfellows” yet.
There’s nothing more amusing then than to make government look incompetent. I get no greater sense of glee watching politicians falter. If your looking for new fields to toil in don’t try renewable energy, Peter Huber beat you to it. You spent much time looking into the mismanagement of federal forests and lands. I would advocate getting rid of the Forest Service on the federal level. I also would support disbanding the National Park Service. Responsibility regarding public lands can be handed over to state autonomy. And the federal spending can be handed over to the states; regional authorities can handle parks and monuments that exist in more than one state such as Yellowstone. You can also try the topic of roads and parking lots (deemed by many in the anti-automobile community as a waste of land) and means to mitigate whatever environmental harm that they may enact such as building crossings to allow wildlife access without getting struck.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Cerviduct.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Trans-Canada-wildlife_overpass.JPG
You could talk about topics in America seeking solutions to crumbling infrastructure (not just roads, but pipelines, sewers, water, powerlines, bridges).
I personally think the direction we’re going, evidenced by the Murdoch wiretapping, prevalence of cameras everywhere, cops persecuting people for photographing their operations, Heimat Sekuritat strip-searching great-grandma Ethel, manipulation of imagery to advocate for war, hacking of drones over Pakistan (& maybe Iran), GOP voter suppression/robocalls, Diebold voting booths, Wisco pols taking citizen’s freedoms, drug testing for McJobs, spread of government intrusions everywhere, Troglodytes suggesting drones over American cities, etc may put a damper on technology such as self-driving cars.
Nevertheless, there have been far, far, far too many posts on the choo-choo to the detriment of the other ideas that appear here: land-use issues, WUI, market incentives/signals, etc. Resurrect the Koch campaign to eliminate zoning, but in a useful way. Grazing on BLM land. Navigable waters. Cross-boundary pollution and private property rights. Avoiding inevitable fisheries collapse by privatization/property rights/whatever and the problem of cross-boundary migration. Wind turbines and viewsheds. Visual rights and solar panels. Fracking and private property rights of neighbors. Eliminating Euclidean zoning without some crazy Koch campaign and instead replace with form-based/street network design incentives. Incentivizing open space via some economic incentive or lease agreement. Market signal indicators for lenders to capture hedonic amenities. Re-jiggering signals for affordable housing incentives. And and and and andandandandandand. Hopefully Cato will let you out of their narrow box to explore some of these.
DS
Dan said: “Nevertheless, there have been far, far, far too many posts on the choo-choo to the detriment of the other ideas that appear here”
I respond that Dan must not live in the late, great state of California, whose governor is hell bent on spending $100 billion that we don’t have on a wondertrain that won’t work as promised, not will create a million jobs like CHSRA promised. The fact that CHSR is still alive, despite all of the recent revelations, indicates that the Antiplanner’s work isn’t done.
The Little Rock streetcar might be a boondoggle, but it pales in comparison to California’s zombie project.
I personally would like to see more on the UGB stupidity. I think the head of the Oregon Republican party was saying that Portland only budgeted 1000 acres for 20 years growth and that any factory (like anyone would with the high minimum productivity wage here) would need a big chunk of that. This individual I work with actually applauded such measures since it was protecting vital farmland. In my area all I see is grass seed and hay growing. The ultimate would be to see the zips of contributors to a major environmental organization plotted on a map with the UGB’s. My guess is that a lot more would be outside than inside.
On a semi-tangential note to /dev/msetty’s comment. I’d love to see GPS units send (maybe Zigbee using something like UDP?) their coordinates and a flag indicating that traffic is going 10 miles or more under the speed limit. My GPS isn’t traffic equipped and I hate the 3:30pm-7:30pm gridlock whenever I drive through Portlandia. Also it would be great for the daily afternoon accident on Beltline in Eugene where there is no traffic service for GPS.
I respond that Dan must not live in the late, great state of California, whose governor is hell bent on spending $100 billion that we don’t have on a wondertrain that won’t work as promised, not will create a million jobs like CHSRA promised.
I moved away about a decade ago, I still follow politics and come back minimum once/annum, this year thrice so I think I’m up on things (altho the MMJ industry’s spread caught my by surprise). Personally I’ll be surprised if it gets off the ground, so to speak.
DS
I’d like to learn more about fuel cells and nanotechnology and how things of that nature might be incorporated into the future of transit. If you dive into that realm, I’m sure I’d enjoy your take. Antiplanners and planners will never really agree, that’s a given, so maybe in theme with Bennett’s request, future posts could focus on the Antiplanner’s passions.
@ Iced: If you want to know about fuel cells….simply read the book “The Hype About Hydrogen”. Overall the book reveals hydrogen is not economically feasible to use for transportation, nor will its use reduce global warming, because of the cost and greenhouse gases generated during production are significant. Hydrogens low energy content per volume and weight of the container. The cost of the fuel cells, and the cost of the infrastructure (never mind the fact that hydrogen easily leaks from even the most well sealed containers unless it’s cryogenically stored which is even more expensive). The most common and cost-effective method of hydrogen production is from natural gas, which emits large amounts of carbon, since it would require too much electricity to produce hydrogen using the electrolysis method; not to mention the costs of having to build a totally new hydrogen fueling infrastructure. Meanwhile internal combustion engines continue to improve in efficiency. More advanced hybrids in the near future can improve vehicle fuel economy. The California Hydrogen Highway is an initiative to build a series of hydrogen refueling stations along that state. These stations are used to refuel what actually few hydrogen vehicles (fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen combustion vehicles) there are. A strong case exists for continuing fuel-efficiency improvements from conventional engine technology at relatively low cost most of which is performed by the automotive industry at no cost to taxpayers. But why would you want to store energy in the form of hydrogen and then use that hydrogen to produce electricity for a motor, when electrical energy is already waiting to be sucked out of sockets all over America and stored in auto batteries. Even our own Energy secretary Stephen Chu, stated that fuel cell hydrogen vehicles “will not be practical over the next 10 to 20 years”.
Hmmm, interesting, I’ll take a look. Thanks, LR.
If I might humbly suggest two new options for advocacy (as requested)…
1) Opportunity Urbanism philosophy of city development (separate from Houston as a strong example)
http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2007/06/opportunity-urbanism-op-ed-in-chronicle.html
http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2007/06/kotkins-opportunity-urbanism-unveiled.html
2) A better solution to our commuting problems. A real, workable, affordable alternative to the rail obsession that could work much better for most modern, car-based, post-WW2, decentralized cities.
http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-new-apple-ipad-and-other-mobile.html
http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2011/02/real-answer-to-houstons-traffic.html
Or you can learn more about both in my recent TEDx talk video and slides here
http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2011/11/my-tedx-houston-talk-mostly-about.html
Keep up the good fight, AP/RO. Best regards,
-Tory
http://www.HoustonStrategies.com
It would be nice if O’Toole got off his ass to find a job. Even some thing part time like restocking shelves at Wal-Mart 3 or 4 days a week.
Planners have recently set their sights on planning the world economy ostensibly around carbon but in effect throwing all their usual desires into global warming planned economy.
Some have argued that global warming was solved on June 3, 2008 (“the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”), but I think the greatest attempt at centralized planning ever attempted will continue for another decade or so.
And there are a never ending number of global warming proposals for regulation, funding and subsidies that would not be very hard to mock on this blog.
Feel free to delete 21 Randal.
I’d also be interested to hear about how a nascent idea possibly relevant for one city can be scaled up!
DS
I second the notion that trains have been discussed ad nauseum, and I want to echo that just because a technology is old, that does not make it irrelevant or obsolete (see: gunpowder, firearms, internal combustion engines, etc.). Those who argue this engage in the chronological snobbery fallacy.
Of course I would like to see more on removing national parks from political management and breaking the too-cozy relationship between government and large, multinational concession corporations that mine parks for profit. There is a dark side to NPS management that needs exposing. See: Schundler or Beamis for the tip of the iceberg. (I’m sure you’ve already seen excerpts from my story.)
Thank you, and best wishes for the new year!
I am not sure I understand the Antiplanner’s claims about timber sales. It is not hard to show how you can make some money selling timber off wildlands. Lots of people and companies do it even today, though less in the US than it used to be.
But the Antiplanner seems to claim that he won an argument that federal lands should not be used for timber sales by using planning arguments about higher value uses, such as recreation and wildlife, that are not monetary and thus not tabulated without planning analysis.
So it seems to me that the Antiplanner used planning to stop timber sales. Tell me how am I wrong?
Dan said: Feel free to delete 21 Randal.
I’d also be interested to hear about how a nascent idea possibly relevant for one city can be scaled up!
THWM: Why say some thing dumb like that Dan?
O’Toole doesn’t have to get up in the morning and go to work.
He doesn’t live in a city, but every day he complains about them and their needs.
He always complains about public transit getting public funds, but he won’t complain about public roads getting way more public funds.
Dan, O’Toole is all about double standards.
O’Toole is a charlatan!
bennett posted:
I would also like to second msetty’s take on “techno-fetish†or as other have put it technological determinism. I don’t oppose new technologies such as driverless cars, but the idea that they will solve the most serious transportation issues of our time, as the antiplanner posts on the subject suggest, are misguided.
Things that have been of great benefit to the United States (and the world in general) have been advances in technology, in particular transportation technology.
That goes back a very long time ago, when humans made what may have been the first big advance in transportation technology, when we figured out how to navigate the oceans to further trade (not sure who did this first), and eventually harnessed windpower as a means of propulsion.
The Greeks invented the Archimedean screw, which allowed the (relatively simple) transportation of water.
Canals allowed inland navigation.
The Romans built the first large-scale paved highway network.
In the 19th Century, the new steam engine powered ships and then overland transportation on the new railroads.
At the start of the 20th Century, man first took flight, and electric power was harnessed to build new urban street railways, perhaps the earliest instance of transportation “causing” so-called “urban sprawl.”
Get where I am going with this?
CPZ, even better is to add to your excellent list (esp important is the Archimedean screw): the invention of the compass for purposeful directional navigation in the Atlantic, the invention of the sextant to approach the Equator (and invention of maps to chart the stars and shoreline for direction when the North Star is below the northern horizon), the use of masts on sails to tack, moveable amphorae to store goods for trade.
Ever since our first wave out of Africa we have needed technology to transport ourselves and our stuff. And the basics of transport have not changed – just the technology to allow us to go faster with more stuff. Walking still works today, and all we need is a few food calories to make it happen – no other technology or energy collection required!
DS
CP,
You’re absolutely correct. Do you think driverless car technology will be viewed histrionically at the same level as indoor plumbing, concrete, canals, the steam engine, planes, etc? This isn’t apples and oranges, it’s apples and toothpicks. Toothpicks are nice but you can’t eat ’em.
Technological determinism often results in laziness and apathy (see: “driverless cars will eliminate congestion completely”). So many are just waiting for a technology to solve a problem in which there my be no technological solution. Losses from energy distribution and emissions from vehicle propulsion (whether petroleum or coal based) are examples that come to mind. And… if there are large scale technologies that solve these problems they will be like the examples you mentioned; they will fundamentally change to way individuals operate on a daily basis. It’s not going to be a simple widget we just buy and plug in.
Then again, maybe Msetty is right about the potential driverless car scenario. Only big bro will drive our cars and we will become passengers forever. I’m not sure that’s going to work for our libertarian colleagues.
CPZ:
The problem with technology, however “advanced” it may be, is how the humans react and use it. Remember that Betamax was the “better” technology, but technically inferior VHS “won” because of various non-technical “human” factors. So it inevitably will be with “robocars”–Brad Templeton’s term for self-driving cars–and similar technology.
For one, to make robocars “work” effectively, there will have to be mandatory interlocks where the vehicle refuses to move under automation unless the occupants have “buckled up.” This opens up a Pandora’s Box of “humans inside” interface dilemmas. For example, how do the inside the seats sensors determine whether that weight on the seat is a dog, a baby, a small child, a package, or a bag of groceries? Gee, one better buckle up the dog, or the package or the groceries before the vehicle moves.
Without mandatory seatbelt interlocks robocars will face the same “brick wall” stopping dilemma faced by PRT, where braking and vehicle spacing has to have a much wider margin of safety than human-driven vehicles (humans can react as the vehicle ahead slows down, thus allowing down to 2-second headways (~1,800 cars/hour, e.g., capacity of a freeway lane with no cross traffic), thus dramatically reducing capacity longer headways between vehicles are required for safety and redundancy.
Given the likely disdain for seatbelts many would have under such a scenario, robocars solve what problem again? How will the robocar enforce putting the baby or small child in the booster seat properly again? Again, how do you fine a robocar if child seat laws are flouted by the humans inside? How does a human cop tell the car to stop? What 4th Amendment issues are involved, and what are legal justifications for forcing a robocar to “pull over?” Any parent or other human vehicle occupant or cop can create dozens if not hundreds of other similar scenarios, too.
I would love to see a comparison of self-driving cars to self-driving trains. Especially with respect to the technology that is supposed to make self-driving cars work.
Train systems with technological safety mechanisms such as automatic train stop (forcing a full brake application upon the violation of a red or yellow signal), positive train control (forcing penalty brake applications upon violation of signal rules OR civil speed restrictions), automatic train operation (driverless trains run by computer remotely), as well as automatic route slection devices (throwing switches and signal ahead of a train based on a pre-determined destination selection) have existed for around 90 years.
Despite all that time to get them right, most of it while under the control of private enterprise, these systems regularly suffer total electronic failures and must be shut down or restarted or cut out, with the vehicle placed under full human control. These systems also have the back up of self-steering tracks that inherently prevent most collisions and off rail excursions (derailments) by steering the vehicle wheels in a pre-determined path.
Now we are supposed to believe that the same types of systems are going to let us play on our cell phones and read books while the car “drives” us somewhere on a non-self-guided permanent way. The car will ALWAYS stop at redlights and stop signs, will NEVER leave the road, and will sense EVERY imminent hazard like deer, little kids, and crap in the road that fell off a truck. I suppose they will be powered by the same computer operating systems that require regular reboots of personal computers, phones, tablets, etc.? Right? Or is there some magic non-failing, non-bug prone, unhackable, non-overidable operating system out there we don’t know about?
Please explain how this is to be made truly fail-safe while the “operator” is busy texting someone.
…and with the lastest decision today by the 9th Circuit and EFF – that it should be OK for communications monopolies to spy on us – I suspect as I elaborated on in 13, there will be a point (hopefully) where Americans will have had enough of technology spying on us. Unless there are 300 more channels of Kourtney and Kim to distract us, that is.
DS
Dan wrote:
Ever since our first wave out of Africa we have needed technology to transport ourselves and our stuff. And the basics of transport have not changed – just the technology to allow us to go faster with more stuff. Walking still works today, and all we need is a few food calories to make it happen – no other technology or energy collection required!
Basics have not changed – but we have not generally gone backwards – once a new (and usually faster) mode of transportation replaces an old(er) mode, the change is usually permanent.
Consider how most long-distance passenger travel in the U.S. has moved from railroads to airlines. I don’t think Amtrak is going to get back those millions of trips that were once carried on passenger trains in, say, the 1940’s.
bennett wrote:
Technological determinism often results in laziness and apathy (see: “driverless cars will eliminate congestion completelyâ€). So many are just waiting for a technology to solve a problem in which there my be no technological solution. Losses from energy distribution and emissions from vehicle propulsion (whether petroleum or coal based) are examples that come to mind. And… if there are large scale technologies that solve these problems they will be like the examples you mentioned; they will fundamentally change to way individuals operate on a daily basis. It’s not going to be a simple widget we just buy and plug in.
But the enormous improvement in air quality (as in reduction of tailpipe emissions) is a direct result of better vehicle emission controls and fuels – both Diesel and gasoline engines are much cleaner thanks to emission controls and improved motor fuels.
Social engineering schemes (such as attempts to force drivers only rail transit lines) have generally not done much for air quality.
CPZ states:
Social engineering schemes (such as attempts to force drivers [to ride?] only rail transit lines) have generally not done much for air quality.
What “social engineering” schemes “…attempt[ing] to force drivers to switch to transit” are you referring to?
The only things I’ve seen in the U.S. are still grossly-underfunded efforts to open a handful of new rail transit (and some BRT) lines, broadening travel choices in a few cities.
CPZ, I doubt you’re referring to tolling projects such as the Highway 520 bridge in Seattle, or the handful of pioneering parking pricing projects advocated by Donald Shoup. If so, I thought auto apologists, er, “automobility” advocates, were generally in favor of moving towards more “user fees” such as those I’m referring to here.
I hope driverless cars become widespread, but I just don’t
see it happening.
We could have driverless trains (like what is so cool at Disneyland), but there is not a snowball’s chance that the DC Metro could have driverless trains. We could have pilotless commercial airliners, but instead we have 2 pilots on every plane.
I don’t think Amtrak is going to get back those millions of trips that were once carried on passenger trains in, say, the 1940?s.
CPZ, entropy always wins and as soon as fuel becomes too expensive to fly (save for the 1%), the lower-energy/cost form of transport will be used again.
DS
“U.S. exports of gasoline, diesel and other oil-based fuels are soaring, putting the nation on track to be a net exporter of petroleum products in 2011 for the first time in 62 years.
“A combination of booming demand from emerging markets and faltering domestic activity means the U.S. is exporting more fuel than it imports, upending the historical norm.
“According to data released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration on Tuesday, the U.S. sent abroad 753.4 million barrels of everything from gasoline to jet fuel in the first nine months of this year, while it imported 689.4 million barrels.”
MSetty wrote:
What “social engineering†schemes “…attempt[ing] to force drivers to switch to transit†are you referring to?
We can start with anyplace where highway dollars were “flexed” to build rail transit systems instead.
The only things I’ve seen in the U.S. are still grossly-underfunded efforts to open a handful of new rail transit (and some BRT) lines, broadening travel choices in a few cities.
What do you mean by commuter choice? When given the choice, most commuters with private automobiles chose that mode, unless there are significant savings in time for using some other mode.
Dan wrote:
CPZ, entropy always wins and as soon as fuel becomes too expensive to fly (save for the 1%), the lower-energy/cost form of transport will be used again.
Will the world run out of recoverable petroleum at some point in the future? Almost certainly.
But that does not mean the end of travel in rubber-tired vehicles or on aircraft (unless something faster or more-convenient comes along – and it may).
SandyTeal wrote:
We could have driverless trains (like what is so cool at Disneyland), but there is not a snowball’s chance that the DC Metro could have driverless trains.
Though the Washington Metro was designed so that computers would run the trains, except for opening and closing the doors.
We could have pilotless commercial airliners, but instead we have 2 pilots on every plane.
I disagree (in part because I once worked on systems engineering for the FAA’s failed Advanced Automation System), though I am not a pilot. Read also what Patrick Smith of Salon’s Ask the Pilot wrote about this subject here.
If they even so much as tried to institute driverless trains the transit unions would reject the technology outright as the technology would otherwise eliminate the drivers job. Unions have a history of ignoring technological progress which only helps to further stagnate their industry. General Motors introduced the first industrial robot the “Unimate” in 1961. It’s job was transporting die castings from an assembly line and welding these parts on auto bodies, a dangerous task for workers, who might be poisoned by exhaust gas or lose a limb if they were not careful. It famously appeared on The Tonight Show by Johnny Carson which it knocked a golf ball into a cup, poured a beer and waved the orchestra conductor’s baton. Just like standardized parts, assembly lines, electricity, telephones, fax machines and computers; Technological progress heavily drives business and just because a company won’t embrace a technological shift doesn’t mean that their competitor isn’t going to.
MSetty also wrote:
CPZ, I doubt you’re referring to tolling projects such as the Highway 520 bridge in Seattle, or the handful of pioneering parking pricing projects advocated by Donald Shoup. If so, I thought auto apologists, er, “automobility†advocates, were generally in favor of moving towards more “user fees†such as those I’m referring to here.
Sorry I did not respond sooner to this part of your post.
I have no problem with pricing of roads and parking spaces and transit and other transportation resources.
Hence my long-standing personal support for Maryland’s InterCounty Connector (Route 200), the first totally-priced highway in the state, and one of the first in the Eastern U.S. (I am not including HOV/Toll Lanes or Express Toll Lanes when I write this). I also like toll cordons, such as those implemented in Stockholm, Sweden and London, England.
Performance parking, like what Shoup advocates for, also makes loads of sense.
But – I do have a problem with the use of the revenues collected from projects of the above nature. If the revenues are simply used to fund ossified urban transit systems, then my enthusiasm declines markedly, for it becomes very difficult to explain to the users of these priced resources benefits them.
CPZ, we’ve found in the Bay Area that using some of the tolls on the Bridges here for transit, particularly BART and ferry services, has not caused any significant outcry, well, except for highway advocate types. This is because there is a well-established nexus between the use of those funds for transit in the same corridors served by the bridges.
For the two Carquinez Strait crossings nearest to Solano and Napa Counties, I think a stink might be raised if enough people understood a large proportion of those tolls are going to bail out the gross cost overruns on the new Bay Bridge (which exceed any transit project I’m aware of, including the most egregious BART projects), at the expense of improved transit that otherwise could be afforded in the I-80 and I-680 corridors.
MSetty wrote:
CPZ, we’ve found in the Bay Area that using some of the tolls on the Bridges here for transit, particularly BART and ferry services, has not caused any significant outcry, well, except for highway advocate types. This is because there is a well-established nexus between the use of those funds for transit in the same corridors served by the bridges.
If it can be documented in an easy and straightforward way that the persons and firms paying the tolls are deriving a benefit that can be quantified, then I would certainly give the benefits some consideration.
For the two Carquinez Strait crossings nearest to Solano and Napa Counties, I think a stink might be raised if enough people understood a large proportion of those tolls are going to bail out the gross cost overruns on the new Bay Bridge (which exceed any transit project I’m aware of, including the most egregious BART projects), at the expense of improved transit that otherwise could be afforded in the I-80 and I-680 corridors.
As I understand it, all Bay Area toll crossings (except for the Golden Gate Bridge) are under control of one entity, and the bonds are secured by a “basket” of toll revenues from all of those toll crossings. This is pretty common (Maryland (MdTA), Pennsylvania (PTC), New Jersey (NJTA), Pennsylvania/New Jersey (DRJTBC and DRPA), New York (NYSTA, NYBA and NYMTA B&T) all do this). I am not excusing the cost overruns at the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge either (though it became pretty clear after 1989 Loma Prieta quake that the east span needed replacement).
Regarding transit construction cost overruns, Virginia’s Dulles Rail (according to its Final Environmental Impact Statement) was supposed to cost about $3 billion, yet the estimated cost to complete now is approaching $7 billion.
CPZ, the tolls on the ICC are only going to cover 20% of the expenses of the highway.
msetty: “CPZ, we’ve found in the Bay Area that using some of the tolls on the Bridges here for transit, particularly BART and ferry services, has not caused any significant outcry, well, except for highway advocate types.”
How about the citizens who are outraged that toll money is going into MTC’s vanity SF headquarters relocation project instead of needed transportation projects?