New Transportation Blog

Freeways and the Decline of the Hill District

2010-07-26T13:32:00.003-04:00

Tim Lee has a great post describing the slow death-by-strangulation of St. Louis by its highway system. The money quote:

Carving up St. Louis with freeways didn’t just undermine individual neighborhoods, it permanently changed the region’s culture. By undermining walkable urban neighborhoods while simultaneously making it easier to commute in from the suburbs, planners effected a massive transfer of wealth from from cities to suburbs. It’s not surprising that many people responded to these incentives by moving to the suburbs. But it was hardly a voluntary choice.

Pittsburgh isn't nearly as chopped up as St. Louis is, and the city is also much more vibrant. However, the Hill district suffers tremendously because 579 cuts it off from downtown.

Though I think it would be much more useful than the North side to downtown light rail line, I doubt 579 will ever be buried. I'm afraid, the Hill districts only hope is for the vibrancy of Oakland to slowly encroach from the east.

Futher East, 376 cuts Greenfield off from Schenley Park and Squirrel Hill. Thankfully, Squirrel Hill is protected from the freeway by the tunnel. I suspect that without the tunnel the entire Summerset development would never have happened. According to Zillow, the average home price is 15207 (Greenfield/Hazelwood) is less than a third of the average home price in 15217 (Squirrel Hill).

Burying a highway is obviously incredibly expensive. The final cost of the big dig in Boston was $14.6 billion! That said, I think it's worth it in many settings. For example, burying 376 would have at least three benefits: First it would add value to all of the homes in South Squirrel Hill and a lot of value to the homes in Greenfield. Second, the retail establishments near Forward and Murray Avenue in Squirrel Hill and along Beechwood in Greenfield would connect and feed off each other. Finally, there would be a lot of new land on top land on top of the new tunnel, much of which is adjacent to Schenley Park that the city could auction off.

Pittsburgh Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Public Forum

2010-07-16T13:17:00.005-04:00

I just got the following email from the Pittsburgh Port Authority:

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Public Forum - SAVE THE DATE

Monday,September 20, 2010
8:00 am – 4:00 pm
Duquesne University - Power Center Ballroom, 1015 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA
No fee to attend.
Registration information will be provided in a future notice

A new on-street BRT service is under consideration in Allegheny County to offer faster, more reliable, and easier to understand transit service. The initial focus is to link Downtown Pittsburgh with Oakland and other East End neighborhoods. As has been realized in other cities, “Rapid Bus” service improves transportation and is an effective catalyst for community revitalization. Implementation of BRT in Pittsburgh’s East End could result in similar benefits for the Forbes and Fifth avenues Corridor. Before us is a golden opportunity to envision and design the service, facilities and economic development that leaders and citizens want for their neighborhoods.

This forum, focused on Pittsburgh’s Downtown – Oakland – East End area, will feature planning, development, and transportation professionals with BRT experience along with elected officials and transit stakeholders from our community. Breakout sessions will facilitate discussion of BRT benefits, challenges and community development issues. This forum is being organized by the following organizations:

Allegheny Conference on Community Development
Allegheny County Department of Economic Development
Allegheny County Transportation Action Partnership
Bike Pittsburgh
City of Pittsburgh - Department of City Planning
Hill House Development Corporation
National Bus Rapid Transit Institute
Oakland Planning & Development Corp.
Oakland Transportation Management Association
Oakland Task Force
Pittsburgh Community Reinvestment Group
Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership
Pittsburgh Partnership for Neighborhood Development
Port Authority of Allegheny County
Remaking Cities Institute
Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission
Sustainable Pittsburgh
Uptown Partners

I can't find any news stories about this meeting or the bus rapid transit proposal. I hope this is a more ambitious proposal than what's described in the port authority route changes documentation. One reason I am hopeful is that the proposal use the term "bus rapid transit" rather than "rapid bus." Bus rapid transit usually implies exclusive roadways and train-like stations (this Port Authority document defines the bus rapid transit and rapid bus). The current route change plan has neither.

Pittsburgh emerging as a hub for future transportation technology

2010-06-30T09:43:00.000-04:00

Pittsburgh emerging as a hub for future transportation technology

Next-generation, ultra-light electric vehicle - ULV : DigInfo

2010-06-28T13:45:00.000-04:00

Felix Salmon on Minimum Parking Requirements

2010-06-24T14:44:00.002-04:00

No such thing as free parking

2010-06-24T14:44:00.001-04:00

Tunnel Boring Machine in Pittsburgh

2008-01-31T21:04:00.000-05:00

The Pittsburgh Port Authority is extending the city's subway system with the help of a German made tunnel boring machine. The machine costs $10 million and requires significant worker support. The Pittsburgh Post Gazette reports significant setup time:

Yesterday, the 500-ton machine made by Herrenknecht AG was taking a breather as workers installed giant rings behind it, which its 20 hydraulic arms will push against to keep moving through the soil...

[Later], it will start churning again and spend the next three to four weeks moving about 100 yards forward and slightly downward ...

[Then], drilling will halt for another three weeks or so while workers finish installing the trailing gear that extends from the rear of the machine -- the control cab, the hydraulic and electrical lines that power the machine, and pipes that pump a water-and-clay mixture to the front of the cutting heads to help them slice through the earth, and then transport earth and stone back to the surface.

I found a Video on YouTube which explains how the machine works:

NOTE: Those of you reading this post in a feed reader may need to click through to the website to view the video. Sorry for the inconvenience.

When I watched this video all I could think about is Bebop and Rocksteady boring to the Technodrome in core of the earth to escape the Ninja Turtles.

This machine is pretty amazing as it is, but hopefully it will continue to get better and we'll be able to build tunnels without spending half a billion dollars. With ubiquitous tunnels, Manhattan could be green, even outside Central Park. Mountain routes could be flat and straight. Sounds good to me.

Links: Pittsburgh Post Gazette

Bus Rapid Transit Video

2008-01-28T15:44:00.000-05:00

StreetsBlog has an interesting video on Bus Rapid Transit in Bogotá, Columbia:

NOTE: Those of you reading this post in a feed reader may need to click through to the website to view the video. Sorry for the inconvenience.

I read an article in IEEE Spectrum over the summer about a similar system in São Paulo, Brazil. I wonder if there's anything unique about the city structure, culture, government, or weather of South America that encourages the adoption of Bus Rapid Transit. What do you think about Bus Rapid Transit? I'm on the fence, but this video certainly makes the Bogotá systems look much better than any bus system I've ever used.

Links: StreetsBlog Post | Spectrum Article on São Paulo Buses | Bus Rapid Transit Policy Center

Personal Rapid Transit in Los Angeles

2008-01-28T15:23:00.000-05:00

The Los Angeles City Council will focus tomorrow on the city's transportation crisis. Councilwoman Wendy Greuel, Chair of the Transportation committee, requested feedback on the city's "transportation vision." Roy Reynolds, Managing Director of PRT Strategies, responded in a letter published in CityWatch:

Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) technology has matured from its first implementa-tions in the 1970s and is ready for wider deploy-ment, possibly as early as 2010. We can best introduce this technology to you via the attached treatment we’d done last month in response to MTA’s request for comments re. the downtown Connector Study. PRT is a reasonable elevated solution for this application, and many others in the City.

It’s time to consider a high-tech solution to LA’s traffic problems. The first phase of your project seeks goals and objectives and it’s time for a new approach – that is, unconventional but achievable solutions, utilization of all available RoWs, computerization and dealing with freight cartage where PRT can be applied.

The first initial impression of PRT is that it cannot deal with heavy passenger volumes. With study and understanding, and simple mathematical projections, PRT can readily match standard bus and rail capacities given 1) that hundreds of vehicles can operate on its trackways with VERY short “headways” – perhaps as minimal as one second separations, and 2) that PRT is NOT a linearly-oriented system – it’s infrastructure is far more useful and flexible if multiple networked paths are built between stations.

PRT stations can also be built INTO structures, acting as second floor in-building portals. This leads us to the potential for public/private partnerships – a currently popular strategy in dealing with large civic expenditures. In this example, the property value of a structure is increased, and PRT becomes appealing to a middle-class demographic when it’s realized that a private and secure ride can be had on demand to/from home or office.

Links: Letter in CityWatch | PRT Strategies

Today's Irony

2008-01-28T11:22:00.001-05:00

I worked for Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH) in 2006 and found my time there to be thoroughly boring. So I was surprised today to find a PowerPoint deck by BAH employee Paul Hoffman about Personal Rapid Transit (PRT). He presents a a very good overview of the subject, including this table:

Need Design Feature and Goal of PRT

Faster total travel times 14 – 65% faster overall travel speeds than rail

Lower operating costs 25 -50% lower than light rail
Comparable or slightly higher than heavy rail
Lower or comparable with automobile

Lower capital costs 25-50% lower than light rail
35-75% lower than monorail or heavy rail

Reduced energy use Auto equivalent of 70-90 mpg
Up to 50% less than rail

Capacity Comparable to light rail and advanced bus systems
Lower than heavy rail per corridor, higher on a capacity/cost basis
One-way guideway equal to 2-3 highway lanes

Small right of way 3’-5’ wide guideway
Able to be installed on curb or median
Stations integrated into buildings

Need	Design Feature and Goal of PRT
Faster total travel times	14 – 65% faster overall travel speeds than rail
Lower operating costs	25 -50% lower than light rail Comparable or slightly higher than heavy rail Lower or comparable with automobile
Lower capital costs	25-50% lower than light rail 35-75% lower than monorail or heavy rail
Reduced energy use	Auto equivalent of 70-90 mpg Up to 50% less than rail
Capacity	Comparable to light rail and advanced bus systems Lower than heavy rail per corridor, higher on a capacity/cost basis One-way guideway equal to 2-3 highway lanes
Small right of way	3’-5’ wide guideway Able to be installed on curb or median Stations integrated into buildings

He doesn't site sources for any of the statistics he lists, so I would take them with a grain (or 5 lb. bag) of salt. Click the link below to read further.

Links: Paul Hoffman's PowerPoint Deck

Experts or Politicians?

2008-01-27T20:37:00.001-05:00

Honolulu is planning a $3.8 billion mass transit system. The Honolulu Star Bulletin reports that the city council has decided to let a panel of experts decide which technologies to pursue:

The City Council passed a measure yesterday that authorizes a panel of experts to select the technology for the city's planned multibillion-dollar mass transit system, despite concerns by several councilmembers that this crucial decision would be made behind closed doors.
...

"We should never cede our decision to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to un-elected, unaccountable, largely mainland experts," said Councilman Charles Djou. "A closed-door secret meeting on how to spend billions of dollars is something that is utterly unacceptable and something the Council should never condone."
...

The technology panel will be deciding whether the planned $3.8 billion fixed guideway system going from Kapolei to Ala Moana should be steel on steel, on rubber tires or on a magnetic levitation system.

I do understand the concern that an unelected expert panel cannot be held accountable to voters if they make a poor decision. However, if I were a city councilman I would rather delegate this decision to experts than try to make it myself. What does the average city councilman know about magnetic levitation? I only wish other local governments were so wise.

Links: Star Bulletin, Full Article | Star Bulletin Editorial

Electric Cars In Israel

2008-01-24T15:58:00.000-05:00

Thank you to Elnatan Reisner for alerting me to this story.

Several large companies including Renault and Nissan, Israeli business leaders, and the Israeli government are getting together to promote electric cars. From the Register:

Israel today announced backing for Project Better Place, intended to switch motor transportation from oil to electric, and by a massive coincidence one of the project's prime movers, Shai Agassi of Better PLC, was evangelising at the DLD (Digital Life, Design) show in Munich. His objective, he says, is to "take one country off oil in a way that is repeatable." Israel is that country.

And the model is the mobile phone. Really. The point of choosing Israel, says Agassi, is that doing it in a chaotic country is important, and he claims Israel is the most chaotic nation he knows. Plus there are helpful limits to how far you can drive in Israel - the endurance of a electric car on one 'fill up' is about 200km, and that easily covers the furthest you can go within Israel.

He takes a pretty rational view of how far people are prepared to go to save the planet, and when it comes to cars that's not very far. It's got to be your car, no shares, with performance and size at least equivalent to today's models. It's got to be affordable (which includes image and cred, so lose points for non 'green' Hummers), and it's got to be fairly easy to 'fill up'. That last one's one of the gotchas of electric, and it's Agassi's primary point of attack. So you've got a vehicle that allows people to be green without it actually costing them anything to do so, and you've got the 'filling stations'.

Which work this way. Israel will be blanketed with a network of battery exchange stations and roadside charge points which allow the cars to be charged whenever they're parked. Agassi suggests there will be about 500,000 of these, and points out that it's doable, because they've got them in Sweden, Norway and parts of Canada, where if you don't plug in when you stop your engine freezes. Charge points and swap stations mean there's no need for lengthy charge periods, so 'filling up' should take no more time than it does currently at a petrol station.

My first reaction: Cool! This is a dramatic public private effort and in Israel! It's impressive that this effort has already raised $200 million in private funding.

My second reaction: I'm a little nervous about the "if you built it they will come" attitude. I'm not sure a network of recharging stations is the main missing link to a world of electric cars.

My third reaction: Cool!

Links: Register | Wall Street Journal | Haaretz

Autonomous Vehicle Safety

2008-01-17T11:28:00.000-05:00

I had a conversation with someone yesterday in which I asserted that a shift toward more autonomous vehicles will improve safety. He immediately objected and listed a bunch of computer related disasters.

What I don't think this person realized is that computers have steadily taken a bigger and bigger role in the transportation they use every day. The biggest automotive safety advance in years, electronic stability control (ESC), is a computerized system. The National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), estimates that ESC reduces accidents by 35 percent. Every generation of commercial airliners includes more and more sophisticated avionics software. The airline industry is going through it safest period in years.

In contrast, the NHTSA reported 5,973,000 U.S. car accidents in 2006, which caused 42,642 deaths and 2,575,000 injuries. In addition, motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of death for every age from 2 through 34. I don't have any statistics available to prove it, but I'm confident the vast majority of these accidents share one primary cause -- human error.

Links: NHTSA 2006 Fact Sheet | NHTSA on ESC

Tolls Everywhere - Marginal Revolution Edition

2008-01-16T10:40:00.000-05:00

Links: Marginal Revolution | New Transporation

Safe Mining

2008-01-15T11:37:00.000-05:00

Thank you to my father for alerting me to this story.

The Washington Post ran a fascinating article about the airline industry this past Sunday. The airlines have had an amazing safety record over the past few years. They attribute much of this success to a surprising source -- data mining. In one example cited in the story, analysts discovered an unknown bulge in a Vermont runway by mining takeoff angle records.

This success story is only possible because planes, air traffic control, and airports track an amazing amount of information. Commercial airplanes have been the safest form of transportation for a long time. Yet for some reason, we have not made similar investments into data collection for cars, the least safe major form of transportation. I suspect if we did we could make a major dent in car deaths.

Link: Washington Post Story

Congestion Pricing

2008-01-14T12:44:00.000-05:00

New York City is considering various schemes to cut down on traffic in Manhattan. A New York state commission just released an interim report evaluating four plans, each of which combine one or more of the following: congestion pricing, bridge tolling, pricing of parking and taxis, and license plate rationing. I strongly support any effort to reduce traffic. However, I think congestion pricing is the most direct and logical choice. Ideally, all drivers should be charged for the delay they are causing by being on the road. The best way to do that is to build a comprehensive system of tolls whose fees change dynamically with the traffic. One of the four plans considered by the commission, the one proposed by Mayor Bloomberg, seems to be far closer to an ideal system than the others.

Link: Commission Report

2008-01-14T12:22:00.000-05:00

I put a small text advertisement on the left navigation. I will probably insert text ads into the feed and a graphic ad somewhere on the main page. The money I make from the ads will be used exclusively to advance the cause.

I have a few ideas already that require money: attracting people to this blog by advertising on other blogs, registering a domain, printing posters, registering as a non-profit, and flying to Chicago to be on Oprah.

Hopefully, you won't find the ads to be too obtrusive. If you do, leave a comment.

Tolls, Tolls, Everywhere

2008-01-13T23:24:00.000-05:00

There are two ways to end the direct subsidy of roads. The first way is to privatize the roads, but this doesn't make much sense to me. The second is to dramatically expand tolls. Ideally the fee will correspond exactly with the cost the driver is imposing on the government. Heavier cars will be charged more because they cause more damage to the roads. Driving on roads that were expensive to build or are expensive to maintain (e.g. bridges) should cost more than driving on inexpesive roads.

I think there is interesting research and creative entrepreneurship needed to make this work well. We need a toll collecting mechanism (probably similar to EZPASS) that is inexpensively deployable and does not slow traffic. We also need a way of telling drivers how much they are being charged. I don't think a sign at every street corner is the answer. Better would be to store toll information in GPS navigation devices so drivers can choose from different routes based on toll cost. We also need an accurate and comprehensive model of the damage different cars do to roads and the cost of construction and maintenance of different roads.

Do you have any ideas for making ubiquitous tolls work? If you do, please post a comment.

Economic Costs of Cars

2008-01-13T19:45:00.000-05:00

I found a paper, by economists Ian Parry and Kenneth Small, that discusses optimal gasoline tax rates. The paper is very technical, but I think I was able to glean something useful from Table 5. The paper estimates the external cost of four problems with cars: Global warming, pollution, accidents, and congestion. They respectively contribute: 5¢, 16¢, 24¢, and 29¢ to the optimal gasoline tax. The United States consumed 126 billion liters of gasoline in 2003. Thus, if I understand the paper correctly the external cost of global warming is $6 billion, pollution $20 billion, accidents $30 billion, and congestion $37 billion, for a total of $93 billion.

I will have to dive deeper into the paper to dive deeper into the paper to be confident that my understanding is correct. Hopefully, I can find an economics graduate student at Carnegie Mellon willing to help me out.

This paper seems to have a very right leaning slant. I think its primary political purpose is to argue that the gasoline tax in Britain is too high. However, Greg Mankiw, an American economist, uses it as a source to advocate raising the tax on gasoline in the United States.

Do you know of any other papers that estimate the economic cost of cars? If you do, please post a comment with links.

Links: Ian Parry and Kenneth Small | Greg Mankiw | Gasoline Consumption by Country

Moderating Comments

2008-01-13T14:25:00.000-05:00

Comments will no longer be moderated. I think it confuses users when their comments don't appear immediately. Commenters will still be required to have Google accounts and solve CAPTCHAs. I will delete inappropriate comments.

Updates

2008-01-11T15:55:00.000-05:00

I made substantial changes to the "Why We Can Do Better Than Cars" list in response to feedback. I consolidated many of the list items to reduce redundancy and I added a few new items. Thank you for your suggestions.

The Subsidized Road Problem

2008-01-10T17:10:00.000-05:00

This post will be continually updated as I think about the subject and respond to your comments.

As I discussed in the introductory entry there haven't been dramatic, revolutionary changes in technology in at least fifty years. Why? You might be tempted to suggest that the technology just doesn't exist. There is a grain of truth to this, there aren't any complete systems radically better than anything we have now ready for prime time. However, many underlying technologies have improved dramatically in the same time period. In particular computing, communications, and material science have each leaped forward. Why hasn't anything radically new evolved on top of the amazing computing we now have available?

I think the answer lies in the economic incentives. Transportation is heavily subsidized: airports, air traffic control, train stations, train tracks, bus stations, marine ports, subways, buses, and roads receive direct subsidies from federal, state and local governments. In other words, your tax dollars pay for these things regardless of how much you use them. This is very problematic, because this means that any new technology has to compete against the entrenched status quo at a heavy discount. This makes it virtually impossible for something new to take hold.

I'm not against subsidies, they are an important government tool. The world is full of things that do more good than their market value suggests: schools, basic research, parks, etc. These things deserve subsidies, and I think some public transportation funding is well deserved. However, there are some things that do more harm than their price suggests and I think roads are an excellent example. In short, cars pollute, kill people, and waste their time. Congested roads are more dangerous, so each extra person that drives increases the risk of everyone else on the road. Each car contributes to the cancer rate and global warming. Finally, big city commuters know all too well that traffic adds huge time to their work day. By driving you impose a cost on all your fellow drivers, but you don't pay that cost. This is on top of the absurd direct subsidy, which gives you free roads! Before you argue that you pay for the roads in taxes, remember that everyone that walks to work pays the same taxes as 150 mile commuters. You do pay, but you don't necessarily pay your fair share and if you increased your use you wouldn't pay more. This leads to the unfortunate consequence, that the cost of roads does not affect your driving related decisions. All of this makes it very difficult to replace roads even though we can do better.

Those of you that know a little economics know that I'm alluding to externalities. It's a fascinating topic and pretty central to my political philosophy. Read up on them, you won't regret it.

Air Car

2008-01-10T15:18:00.001-05:00

Thank you to Sol Schulman for alerting me to this story.

Moteur Developpment International (MDI), a French company founded in 1991 by Formula One engineer Guy Nègre, has released a prototype of a car whose only fuel is compressed air. The car will have a maximum speed of 110kmh (68 mph), and a tank range of 200km(125 miles). Both specs certainly meet the needs of Joe Commuter. The car will cost only €3500($5200 at current prices) and refueling is almost free at an estimated €1.50.

The company also plans to compete for the Automotive X-Prize, a highly publicized, multi-million dollar competition of green cars. The prize will be awarded based on a diverse set of criteria, but all cars must be travel at least 100 miles per gallon of gasoline energy equivalent(MPGe) and emit less than 200 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per mile. MDI's entrant will be an air/fossil fuel hybrid.

Vehicle to Vehicle Communications

2008-01-10T13:02:00.000-05:00

GM CEO Rick Wackoner delivered a keynote address at the Consumer Electronics Show. He spoke about Boss, but he also discussed a new GM initiative that is of particular interest to me. GM plans to dramatically expand OnStar with vehicle to vehicle communications(V2V):

One of the next big developments in automotive electronics is connecting cars with other cars.Connecting them electronically, that is… to keep them from connecting physically.
In recent years, advances in electronics have allowed for technologies like anti-lock brakes, traction control, electronic stability control, and obstacle detection. At GM, we’re working our way up this advanced technology ladder to help our drivers avoid accidents and improve traffic flow. In fact, we’re now offering a Lane Departure Warning System and a blind-spot alert system on the 2008 Buick Lucerne and 2008 Cadillac STS and DTS. We’re preparing to take it even further through the use of GPS and advanced transponder technology that we believe will revolutionize the driving experience.
We call it V2V, or vehicle-to-vehicle communications.V2V starts with collision avoidance and builds from there. And the key difference between V2V and sensor-based “vision” systems is in the electronic communications. Today’s vision systems send out a signal that determines the speed and location of the vehicle ahead of you, and directs your car accordingly.
It’s excellent technology.
These next-generation systems promise to be considerably better… because they’ll be significantly less costly, yes… but more importantly, because they’ll use transponders to “talk” with other vehicles within a quarter mile of your vehicle. So, if six cars ahead, somebody in a transponder-equipped vehicle steps on the brakes… in your lane or the lanes on either side of you… your transponder will immediately know that, and start slowing down your car before you’re even aware you may need to stop. This type of technology, unheard of 15 years ago, has the potential to minimize traffic jams and, more importantly, greatly reduce highway accidents and fatalities… with minimal or possibly even no roadway infrastructure required.

I think the key to building a scalable computer controlled transportation system is vehicle to vehicle communication. I don't think it will be possible to centrally control millions of vehicles. Each vehicle will need to decide for itself when to speed up, slow down, or turn. It might be possible for a central controller to coordinate traffic, but even that looks too difficult considering the problems facing the much smaller air traffic control system. In order to support each vehicle's decisions, the vehicle will need to communicate heavily with its peers. As Mr. Wagoner notes, it is much easier to get a message from the car in front of you that it has slowed down then to figure that out with heavy duty computer vision.

In the interest of full disclosure, my research focuses on programming languages for peer to peer communication. I may very well be a victim of the old adage "if you have a hammer everything looks like a nail," but I don't think so.

Links: GM Keynote Transcript

Why We Can Do Better Than Cars

2008-01-09T21:36:00.000-05:00

I want to make a list of reasons why cars, roads, etc. are really bad for the world. I don't mind if the list is very long, but I'm hoping each of the items will be short, easy to understand, and convincing. The list will be in order from most to least important. Obviously, it is very hard to assign "importance," so I'm going to use my estimate of economic impact as a proxy. Eventually, I'd like to find some real data/analysis for as many items as possible. I think some of the items are virtually impossible to assign a value to, so I'm going to make some pretty arbitrary judgment calls. I do think the top three are in the correct order. Also on the to do list: write expanded posts for each item, make a dependency map between items, expand the list, refine the list, and make the list into a huge poster to bring with me as a prop when I'm on Oprah.

Dead and maimed people
Traffic
Global warming
Expanding roads after buildings are built around them requires herculean effort
Roads are hard to build above, below, or through the ground this makes many common things significant obstacles: water, mountains, canyons, gorges, valleys, other roads, and buildings
Emissions related health problems
Cars don't drive themselves, wasting the drivers time
Cars sit unused most of the time
Cars are expensive to own
Cars do not age well
Parking lots and garages waste space and money (thanks Elnatan)
Time is wasted searching for parking
Maintenance of heavily trafficked roads causes delays
Cars do not adapt well to harsh weather
Cars are noisy
Low maximum speed
Roads divide wildlife territory
Cars kill wildlife

Please send additions, refinements, or questions via the comment link below.

Blog Purpose

2008-01-09T15:00:00.000-05:00

I'm sure you may be wondering why I've started this blog. You might be thinking, "Josh has a 3-month old and he's in a very demanding PhD program, does he really need to be wasting time blogging?" As many of you know I've had a longstanding obsession with transportation. I've decided to start an organization that advocates for radical, new transportation.

New forms of transportation are long overdue. If you compare the transportation we use today to the transportation of fifty years ago there are only insubstantial differences: cars were heavier and less fuel efficient, planes were much more expensive and couldn't fly as far, and there were no bullet trains. However, all of these changes are incremental, not revolutionary. Compare that to the changes in computing, pharmaceuticals, and communications.

The status quo has left the American transportation system in crisis. Traffic in most major metropolitan areas worsens every year. At the same time the bridges, tunnels, and even standard roadways are in disrepair. The congestion in major airports is so bad that the FAA is imposing flight caps. The air traffic control system hasn't been modernized in decades and is stretched well beyond capacity. Global warming has alerted us to the stupidity of burning fossil fuels. We need to do better than even the best hybrid technology to reduce global warming in the face of the fast rising energy needs of emerging nations like China and India. Finally, cars are just too dangerous. They are the leading killer of young people and that won't change just by adding more airbags. These are all huge problems and they need huge solutions.

I think the crisis demands a massive investment by either the federal government or very wealthy philanthropists into transportation research. I believe the advances in material science, mechanical engineering, and in particular computer science leave us tantalizingly close to safer, cleaner, and faster transportation systems. However, a tremendous research effort is needed to get us over the hump. I hope you don't think I'm talking about science fiction in the form of flying cars, "beaming", or warp drive. I'm talking about tangible efforts that have real prototypes, like:

Autonomous vehicles like Boss (see previous post).
Personalized public transportation like ULTra being developed for Heathrow airport.
New Supersonic Jets
Space Elevators
Tunneling Machines

I plan to spend this blog linking to and discussing advances in projects like those listed above. I also hope to interview a diverse set of experts: scientists and engineers working on transportation projects, economists, Department of Transportation employees, Environmental Advocates, Airline executives, etc. I'm also going to write opinion pieces, that will serve as drafts of letters and op/eds that I will send to newspapers, magazines or academic journals. Finally, I would like to discuss organizational, publicity and fundraising ideas.

The comments will be off for the vast majority of posts because I don't have the time to sift through spam. Occasionally, I will open up a topic for discussion and I STRONGLY you encourage you to stay on topic. I plan to moderate all comments, so personal attacks and the like will NOT appear. If you write obnoxious posts you won't be proving how smart you are or how dumb the other guy is, you'll just be wasting my time.

Thanks for reading!

Links: Tunnel Boring Machines | Space Elevator | Supersonic Jets | ULTra | Boss

Boss at CES

2008-01-09T14:21:00.000-05:00

GM is showing off Tartan Racing's Boss at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. For the uninitiated, Boss is an autonomous vehicle (i.e. it is controlled by an on-board computer). A few short months ago it was the decisive winner in DARPA's urban challenge -- a race of autonomous vehicles through an urban environment. The Chevy Tahoe's computer vision technologies were developed at Carnegie Mellon's Robotics Institute. It is getting a ton of coverage in the mainstream press. I'm happy for any publicity autonomous vehicles get, but I'm surprised/upset by three things: 1) The press coverage is much heavier now then it was when it won the urban challenge. 2) Most newspapers seem to be focusing on GM and CMU seems to be almost a footnote. 3) Aside from the Today show story today most articles seem to be missing the point. They don't mention any of the benefits of autonomous vehicles (safety, traffic reduction, environmental impact, everyone can be chauffeured!, etc.) . Instead they focus on GM's "investment" or "gamble" on technology. Where's the boyish enthusiasm? The headlines should be something like "COOL! CAR DRIVES ITSELF!"

Links: Today Show | Wall Street Journal | NY Times

New Transportation Blog

Freeways and the Decline of the Hill District

Pittsburgh Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Public Forum

Pittsburgh emerging as a hub for future transportation technology

Next-generation, ultra-light electric vehicle - ULV : DigInfo

Felix Salmon on Minimum Parking Requirements

No such thing as free parking

Tunnel Boring Machine in Pittsburgh

Bus Rapid Transit Video

Personal Rapid Transit in Los Angeles

Today's Irony

Experts or Politicians?

Electric Cars In Israel

Autonomous Vehicle Safety

Tolls Everywhere - Marginal Revolution Edition

Safe Mining

Congestion Pricing

Advertisements

Tolls, Tolls, Everywhere

Economic Costs of Cars

Moderating Comments

Updates

The Subsidized Road Problem

Air Car

Vehicle to Vehicle Communications

Why We Can Do Better Than Cars

Blog Purpose

Boss at CES