We don’t want automated cars driving the current speed limits

Posted on by

Should automated vehicles follow all the current traffic laws or will they need to be changed?

When Delphi took its prototype Audi robocar from San Francisco to New York in April, the car obeyed every traffic law, hewing to the speed limit even if that meant impeding the flow of traffic.

“You can imagine the reaction of the drivers around us,” Michael Pozsar, director of electronic controls at Delphi, said at a conference in Michigan last week, according to Automotive News.  “Oh, boy. It’s a good thing engineers have thick skin. All kinds of indecent hand gestures were made to our drivers.”

And that indicates that a problem is brewing, argues Prof Alain Kornhauser, who directs the transportation program at Princeton University. “The shame of the driving laws is that they all sort of have a ‘wink’ associated with them,” he says. “It says 55 miles per hour, but everyone knows that you can do 9 over. If that’s the situation, why isn’t it written that way—with a speed limit at 64?”…

In fact, if all cars were autonomous and connected to each other wirelessly, they wouldn’t need stop signs even at the intersections of multilane highways…

I imagine following the speed limit in the Chicago area would lead to some very unhappy drivers. Theoretically, we might not even need speed limits with driverless vehicles as it would all be dependent on the conditions. This might mean that vehicles would go slower at times than drivers might like (perhaps in inclement conditions) but could go a lot faster and more safely even with a good number of drivers nearby.

But, if traffic laws need to be changed, when exactly would this happen? Presumably, it will take some time to introduce these vehicles onto the road and some time for them to grab a large part of the market. Of course, the government could push all new cars in this direction – particularly since they could be so much safer – but older models would still be on the road for some time. To change the laws, all the cars need to switch over at once, an unlikely event. Until all cars are driverless, traffic laws would have to be more conservative to account for drivers but that probably wouldn’t make the new owners happy.

Overall, I haven’t seen much discussion of how automated cars and cars with drivers will mix even as we creep closer and closer to this eventuality.

Planning bicycle-only highways in Munich

Posted on by

Officials are looking into constructing 400+ miles of highways for bicycles:

The ambitious plan calls for a network of 14 two-way bike paths, each 13 feet wide and fully segregated from automobile traffic, that would spread out over an area of about 400 square miles. No crossroads, no traffic lights. It’s an autobahn for cyclists, or, as the Germans obviously call it, a Radschnellverbindungen…

The Radschnellverbindungen is designed to do for bikes what highways do for cars: make traveling long distances more efficient and pleasant. Cyclists will be able to ride at about 12 mph, Kastrop says, without the need the need to slow down then get back up to speed at intersections. There are no nearby cars to worry about, and with wider lanes, you don’t risk getting stuck riding single file behind some slowpoke…

This idea of networks made for bike commuting has been catching on lately. As usual with this kind of thing, the Netherlands is out in front, with 28 long-distance, cyclist-only paths, according to City Lab. London’s planning a network of “direct, high capacity, joined-up cycle tracks.” Copenhagen’s got a “bike skyway.” Paris’ $160 million plan to boost cycling includes five proposed “highways” that will be almost entirely protected from car traffic, on some of the city’s biggest corridors, including the Champs-Elysées.

Building the Radschnellverbindungen’s not a done deal yet. Local authorities must approve the project before construction starts, and it won’t be cheap. The German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung pegs the estimate at $1.75 million per mile.

Three quick thoughts:

1. It would be interesting to see what it takes to plan such paths around existing infrastructure like roads, rail lines, power lines, and other obstacles. To not have any interruptions on the paths could require some ingenuity.

2. Would bicycle highways require their own rules of the road or traffic laws? You don’t want riders in the middle of the paths or riding three abreast. What happens when needing to make an exit from the path?

3. If you are curious about the cost per mile of construction, one group estimates it costs $8-10 million per mile of highway construction in urban areas.

Residential segregation increases in the suburbs

Posted on by

A new study looking at 222 US metro areas between 1990 and 2010 finds increasing suburban residential segregation:

While segregation from neighborhood to neighborhood is decreasing (micro-segregation) within metropolitan areas, segregation from suburban communities (e.g., towns, villages, and cities) to other suburban communities within the same metropolitan areas and from major metropolitan cities to their suburban communities is increasing (macro-segregation). In other words, instead of people of different races living in distinct neighborhoods in the same major metropolitan cities and suburban communities, these major cities and suburban communities are becoming increasingly racially homogenous…

“One of our major findings is that suburban communities are becoming more segregated from each other,” Lichter said. “Cities and communities — not just neighborhoods — matter. Over the past decade or so, some suburban communities have become more racially diverse, even as whites have moved out to other growing suburbs farther from the city or have moved back to the city as part of the gentrification process. In the late 1970s, there was a famous study titled, ‘Chocolate City, Vanilla Suburbs,’ which highlighted that blacks generally lived in large cities while whites lived in suburban communities. Our study shows that minority population growth in the suburbs has fundamentally shifted historic patterns of residential segregation in this country.”…

Hence the claim that residential “segregation now taking new form.” This is consistent with other research showing the white flight scenario of the post-World War II decades has become more complex: more minorities and poor people live in the American suburbs but this hasn’t necessarily improved their lot in terms of quality and/or affordable housing, good schools, job opportunities, access to social services, and so on. Suburban communities have a variety of ways to promote racial (and class) homogeneity through means like zoning, minimum housing sizes, and appeals to patriotism. In this way, perhaps the suburban critics were/are right: they could never be the total panacea for the problems of American society.

Argument: solve Interstate issues by handing them back to the states

Posted on by

One writer suggests it is time for the federal government to get out of the business of funding interstate highways:

Assuming time travel is off the table, let’s learn from our mistakes. First, let’s get the federal government completely out of the business of maintaining the interstate highways crisscrossing our big metropolitan areas. Hand these roads over to state governments as soon as possible, and free state governments to finance these roads in any way they see fit, from higher state gas taxes to variable tolls they could use to reduce traffic congestion. Second, for interstate highways that connect cities across deserts and cornfields, let’s replace the federal gasoline tax with per-mile tolls. One of the many problems with the gas tax is that as gas mileage improves, and as a small but growing number of drivers turn to electric vehicles, gas tax revenue is not keeping up with the needs of the highway system. Per-mile tolls can solve that problem by charging drivers according to how much they actually use the highway system, regardless of the kind of vehicle they’re driving. And as Robert W. Poole Jr. explains, they can be pegged to the cost of each road and bridge, which will help ensure that roads and bridges are adequately financed.

After adopting this approach, we will see states investing in the infrastructure projects that best meet their needs, with some states, like California and New York, choosing to invest more heavily in urban mass transit while others, like Texas and Utah, build bigger and better highways. What remains of the federal highway system, meanwhile, will evolve over time, as the routes that attract the most traffic will grow in line with their per-mile toll revenue while those that attract the least will stay the same size, or perhaps even shrink. We’ll have an infrastructure worthy of a bigger, denser, more decentralized America—the kind of infrastructure that Ike, in his infinite wisdom, would be proud of.

An interesting argument that might have appeal for both liberals and conservatives. For conservatives, having more local control is generally good and states could innovate in a way that a larger bureaucracy might not. (At the same time, corporate interests cross state and national lines and they might not like a decentralized highway network.) For liberals, highways have often been used in redevelopment projects harming poorer neighborhoods and state control would theoretically give neighborhoods and communities more say over the fate of highways. Additionally, interstates encourage sprawl and liberals might want to reign in highway building and maintenance in many places.

I could also imagine several objections to this argument:

1. How many states would be willing to take this on right now given budget issues? This would have to be phased in over time. Which government officials want to take responsibility for raising tolls for driving?

2. Uniformity in the system could be a good thing ranging from common road signs to expectations regarding levels of maintenance and service across states.

Australian architects to demolish McMansions, reuse materials for multiple homes

Posted on by

Three Australian architects have plans to create multiple, more sustainable homes out of McMansions:

The project aims to demolish existing McMansions which have seen better days and reuse as much of the materials as possible – up to 80 per cent – to build between two and four new homes on the site using minimal new materials and sustainable practices.

Mr Gallois said the project aimed to show how housing could be more affordable and could also deliver zero emissions green homes…

“In the face of Sydney’s housing affordability crisis, the Reincarnated McMansion Project provides a real solution to the financial challenges of owning a home in Sydney in 2015,’’ he said…

Australia has some of the biggest homes in the world and the largest CO2 footprint per capita in the world so the aim was to work on both of these issues.

While many don’t like McMansions, few have developed plans of what to do with the many that have already exist. This sounds interesting: find ways to reuse the materials (cuts down on a lot of waste) and split the property into multiple single-family homes (denser housing but still lets people own single-family homes). I’m not sure there are many redevelopment projects that use a lot of the demolished materials – perhaps it requires detailed planning or builders and architects want to start with a blank slate rather than be constrained by older materials.

I wonder how neighbors would view these projects. In a neighborhood full of McMansions, would a group of smaller homes be met with approval? Teardown McMansions in particular prompt criticism because they interrupt the existing aesthetic of a neighborhood. Plus, homeowners want houses nearby to match their housing value, not units that provide less space and drive down prices. Would would the prices be for these new homes and what kind of architecture would they feature?

LA: both mass transit and sprawl help make the case for hosting Olympics

Posted on by

Gizmodo makes the case for Los Angeles hosting the 2024 Summer Olympics by noting its transportation and geographic advantages:

A transportation boom will prevent logistical nightmares

One of the most legendary tales of the 1984 Olympics was that people were so afraid of getting trapped in one of LA’s famous traffic jams that everyone stayed home or left town, allowing athletes and spectators to zip around town on empty roads. Officials could scare Angelenos off the road again (remember Carmageddon?) but they likely won’t have to: LA is in the midst of a public transit renaissance, building out several critical rail lines faster than any other American city. An accelerated timeline would mean many of those major lines will be completed right around the time of the Olympics, including a rail connection and people mover to efficiently deliver riders to and from LAX (finally). The plan says it will deliver 80 percent of spectators by transit. I think that’s totally doable.

Sprawl actually works in LA’s favor

Speaking of traffic, that’s one of the reasons Boston residents were terrified of hosting the games. Boston’s proposal centered around walking and transit, and yes, everything would have technically been very close and convenient. But that’s actually problem when you look at how dense the city is. Imagine hundreds of thousands of people trying to move around such a limited geographical area—it’s destined to be claustrophobic. Los Angeles is about 400 square miles and the venues will be clustered into four major nodes, some of them 30 miles apart. There won’t be a particular part of the city that will be completely incapacitated due to crowds.

Generally, urbanists don’t have much good to say about the current state of mass transit in Los Angeles (except perhaps pining for the extensive streetcar system that disappeared decades ago) or its famous sprawl. Thus, it is interesting to see that it could work in the city’s favor for the Olympics. It may just have enough mass transit to relieve some of the traffic and the sprawl allows for multiple sites that don’t have overlapping footprints. It could lead to other issues such as possible negative effects on residents (as noted above, both Carmageddon and Carmageddon 2 were successful) and whether it is possible to have central Olympic facilities including an athlete’s village and central gathering site.

Think of the possible slogans: “We have the sprawl the Olympics need!” Or, “Police escorts along LA highways for all Olympic athletes!”

Chicago set to expand TOD boundaries

Posted on by

The City of Chicago wants to expand the area that would be eligible for transit-oriented development guidelines:

According to the Tribune, the mayor is expected to introduce a reform that would allow developers to build new TODs within 1,320 feet of a transit station—which would more than double the surface area that developers could build within. In addition, the new rules would also allow developers to build TODs within 2,640 feet of designated pedestrian streets.

Here is a bit more on the background:

Generally, the city requires that developers include one vehicle parking space per residential unit, however the TOD ordinance allows developers to cut down their parking requirements by at least half if the project is located 600 feet from a transit station…The mayor believes that the big investment in renovating the CTA stations along the Brown, Red and Blue lines will serve as a catalyst to seeing more transit-oriented developments, and wants to expand the constraints that developers currently have to build within. “This ordinance will capitalize these investments by accelerating development near transit stations,” the mayor recently declared.

This may not sound like much – the TOD boundaries increase from 600 to 1,320 feet from the transit station – but it could have quite an impact in certain neighborhoods:

Screen Shot 2015-07-28 at 11.57.02 AM.png
[Pretty much everything would be on-limits in the West Loop, River West and River
North neighborhoods if the changes are made.]

The average citizen may not pay much attention to such things but zoning and land regulations have a lot of influence on urban patterns. This change could provide more incentive for denser developments around transportation nodes.

It would be interesting to hear Emanuel’s justification for this: is this about capitalizing on developers who really want to build in these places? Is it about going green? Is it about cutting down on traffic?

Why don’t we have 3,000-5,000 foot tall skyscrapers?

Posted on by

After explaining how exoskeletons provide stability for skyscrapers, this article explains why we don’t have even taller buildings:

So what keeps engineers from building even taller buildings? It’s not physics. “We can build twice as high as we can today,” says Shmerykowsky. “But it all comes back to the economics.” In other words, taller buildings aren’t worth the money to developers right now.

Plus, most cities have municipal codes that place restrictions on tall buildings to prevent them from interfering with air traffic or from disrupting the overall aesthetic of the city’s skyline. On the engineers’ part, as long as the soil around the foundation of the building can take the weight, even taller skyscrapers are possible.

Thoughts on the two reasons given above:

1. Economics. So what kind of densities would be needed for the economics to work out? Think of some of the most expensive housing markets in the world like Hong Kong, Tokyo, London, Manhattan, San Francisco. Even they couldn’t support taller buildings? I also imagine someone would make the case that buildings a supertall structure could lead to additional benefits like status and tourists.

2. Local regulations. Perhaps this is the bigger issue: who wants to be a neighbor to such a building? Would people be willing to live on the 130th floor? Would a single supertall building stick out of the skyline?

But, if such buildings can be constructed, we will probably have one sooner rather than later. Being the first could be quite appealing to a developing city or leader who wants attention.

Fighting public urination with splash-back paint

Posted on by

Public nuisances can lead to innovation in San Francisco:

The city’s Public Works agency is testing a pee-repellant paint on walls in areas that have been saturated with urine. Anyone urinating on the specially treated walls will get the spray splashed back onto them.

San Francisco’s director of public works, Mohammed Nuru – whose Twitter handle is @MrCleanSF – got the idea when he read on social media about the use of the paint in Hamburg, Germany’s nightclub district to stop beer drinkers from relieving themselves in the street.

The paint, called Ultra-Ever Dry, is sold by Ultratech International Inc and is billed as a superhydrophobic coating that will repel most liquids…

In a pilot program, San Francisco last week painted nine walls in areas around bars and other areas with big homeless populations.

This may be welcome in many places. Yet, the lack of bathrooms in many major cities is a big issue. For example, Mitchell Duneier has a section in his ethnography Sidewalk on the issues homeless black street vendors have in finding facilities. The paint may help deter people – particularly those around bars who could use the restrooms there – but doesn’t address the bigger concerns about clean public restrooms.

Homes going off the market at a record pace

Posted on by

Given the reduced supply of homes for sale, Redfin reports that houses for sale are going fast:

New research suggests that not only are typical selling times declining in the current bull market for housing, but they also may have hit record lows. According to realty brokerage Redfin, the median time on market dipped to just 26 days during June — the shortest time on record for its database — with houses in some markets moving from listing to contract in 11 days or less. Denver homes sold in six days or less, according to Redfin; Seattle’s median was nine days; Portland, Ore., 10 days; and Boston, 11 days.

That’s hot. But there are dozens of cities around the country where selling speeds are nowhere near that quick. According to June data from real estate Web portal realtor.com, which uses information from local multiple-listing services nationwide, the median time on market for homes in Chicago was 54 days. In the Washington, D.C., area it was 45 days; Miami, 75 days; metropolitan New York, 68 days; Oklahoma City, 53 days. At the laggard end of the spectrum, the median house in Brownsville, Texas, took 122 days to sell; Myrtle Beach, S.C., 105 days.

Why such apparently wide variations from area to area, and what can a typical seller expect? Some basics: Part of selling speed depends on matters that you can control. But there are factors you can’t control — the strength of your local economy, employment and income growth. If the economy is on fire and there’s a low inventory of homes for sale to serve market demand, you’re going to see houses rapidly zipping from listing to contract.

Regional variation is to be expected but it may also suggest that certain housing markets are getting overheated again – not necessarily by high prices and a lot of new construction (like the mid 2000s sprawl of Las Vegas) but by having high demand yet few homes for sale.

The article goes on to talk about how sellers can slow down the process by pricing their homes a bit higher and leaving room for negotiation. But, there is little discussion about who benefits or is hurt by these quick sales times. Doesn’t this suggest that more housing is needed in the market, particularly in the lower ends of the market, either through some new construction or through continuing to help people get out from underneath their mortgages?