Happy World Car-Free Day. I've celebrated by driving to work so far.
94 thoughts on “September 22, 2016: Walk, Don’t Drive”
I got over 70mpg driving home last night....
well, shoot, son, that's cruisin' speed on the ol' ike around here.
It's not actually a speed.
*squints* ohhh, yeah. oops.
Next thing you'll be saying you did the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs.
Now that we have our solar panels turned on (finally!), my wife's e-Golf is being powered by the sun.
I work from home and have no reason to use our Mazda today (that I know of).
I suspect I am in the minority on this, but I would not trade my commute on public transportation for driving to work every day (even if I could afford a parking spot). Obviously public transportation is not feasible alternative for every commute.
I really wish there was a better option as I hate driving (in general, though specifically in traffic), but not much where I'm situated.
CH, I'm definitely in your minority. My bus was standing room only this morning, but I still got in a little reading time.
All those youths going to school, crowding the buses. It is nice come middle of June when the availability of seats increases. I haven't had to stand in quite a while despite getting on toward the end of the trip. I am always able to find an open seat in the back.
I lived for 5 years in DC without a car. It was bliss.
I loved being carfree in Prague, where the infrasturcture is great.
I ride my bike as often as is practicable here in the Cities. Our new house will 100% mean I drive though.
I'm a big fan of public transportation over driving, but unfortunately wanting to take public transportation where I live is like wanting to practice crop rotation in the desert. Plus work-from-home is the trump card.
I think you are in the majority. With wifi on buses, it s much better than driving. I wish it worked for me.
Agreed. I do generally enjoy driving, which is why I insist on a stick, but taking public transportation to work would be wonderful.
Of course, my line of work tends to not allow me to work in cities large enough to have the infrastructure.
I'm with you, but I think there are still a lot of people that prefer to accept the uncertainty of traffic vs. the uncertainty of when the next bus will come, because it feels like you have more control over getting quickly to your destination if you are behind the wheel.
Public transportation has a chicken and egg problem. Need more routes to get more riders. Need more riders to get more routes.
My job requires use of a car during job hours. I also like the flexibility of going to stores on the way home to get groceries, cold supplies, etc. Or if god forbid a family emergency. I realize the car is more illusion of control, but it would be super stressful to have to rush to the hospital to see someone and have to rely on the bus to get there.
I figure for emergencies I would use a taxi.
Yes. I don't think a true emergency would be a problem.
The convenience issue is real, especially when you have kids.
This is what keeps me driving. Looking forward to (someday) using the express bus stop ~1 mile from my house.
That might depend on where you live. In rush hour in Manhattan, you might be better off taking the subway.
It's hard to talk about public transportation without talking about a specific place. Where I grew up, cars made a lot of sense--though we could still have done very well with fewer of them--but where I live now, I'll do just about anything to avoid driving. There's a world of difference driving 13 miles in 15 minutes and driving 13 miles in 50 minutes.
When we went from two cars to one car, I was really worried about various corner cases where I might want a second car, but it turned out that those fears never really materialized and I'm happy without having to pay the costs of parking, fuel, maintenance, and depreciation that come with a second car. We'll see how much having a kid changes that, but my hope is that by starting with one car, we'll adapt as we go.
I meant taxi as a stand-in for service that lets you go to an unusual spot on short notice, quickly.
Until recently, we had one working car with two kids. Honestly, it wasn't that difficult to do. We did get the other one fixed because we wanted the option for each of us to go separate places but I'm not sure that's even happened yet. I'm going to assume yes and I've simply forgotten.
EAR keeps saying we should get a second vehicle to simplify the one night a week three weeks a month that we're too busy. I keep deferring because I'll have to completely revamp the garage. (Can anyone fit six bikes, a rider mower, and two cars in a 2-car garage?
If and when we do it'll be as small a pickup as possible.
My employer uses a carrot & stick approach to boosting metro ridership. An annual faculty/staff bus pass is $24, with the balance subsidized by my institution. (A monthly pass is $65 for unlimited fares.) An annual parking permit runs $718-$1,235 depending on the lot you get.
My bus is an unofficial express route, meaning I cover five miles of urban/residential/downtown area in about half an hour. With some fancy driving I can shave about five minutes off the trip, at the expense of substantial stress, a half hour of reading/podcast time, and absolute indifference to the weather & driving conditions.
For someone with my earning power and in my socioeconomic class it's a no-brainer, even with finessing transportation to childcare.
We also had great public transportation, dismantled it, restructured our lives and cities around cars, and now struggle to get people to ride again.
Driverless cars are the public transportation of the future.
Not from a congestion/resource efficiency standpoint.
I disagree.
There's still a geometry problem. Per square foot, cars take up a lot of space per passenger, especially if you only have one or two in the car. Yes, AI can potentially improve traffic, but you can still only fit so many cars on the road even if they are bumper to bumper.
I think they'll be a piece of the puzzle, but not the cure-all.
Not only a geometry problem, although that's a big piece of it. Each separate car requires replication of powerplant/batteries, drivetrain, tires, mechanical systems (brakes, steering systems, suspension gear, etc.), and so on that are far more resource-inefficient than mass transit serving the same population of riders.
I don't look at driverless cars as being solo drivers. I'd think it would be small buses that would take people directly to their destinations in an efficient way.
So like driverless UberPool in shuttle buses? That could be a cool way to fill some gaps, especially in lower density places.
"Well it's not quite true to say they don't have a driver, they technically do but then again so did elevators at first," Mr Santamala says.
🙂
I also disagree.
Yea, congestion and resource efficiency are two overlapping but slightly different issues.
Fixed-route mass transit systems impose a whole bunch of costs on both riders and society (since fixed routes are, you know, fixed, and since the systems almost never come close to covering their operating expenses through farebox revenue).
Driverless vehicles combined with ridesharing promise to dramatically reduce the numbers of cars on the road at peak times and overall, and perhaps more importantly, vastly reduce the requirements for parking.
...since the systems almost never come close to covering their operating expenses through farebox revenue...
For some reason we require mass transit to be revenue-neutral (or even revenue-generating), while road & highway infrastructure is not saddled with the same requirement. There's also the matter of less rigidly fixed-route mass transit, like BRT.
I am pessimistic about Americans suddenly gravitating toward P2P ridesharing as a transportation model at a societal scale. The matter of vehicle owners allowing the unsupervised operation of their vehicles for the benefit of strangers seems completely unprecedented outside of something like torrenting, SETI@home-style distributed computing, or (perhaps) Airbnb.
I think you're forgetting the Millennials. Many are not rushing out to get drivers' licenses, if they get them at all. They will embrace driverless vehicles. This is the Uber of the future. You'll find them owned (or leased from someone else) by the likes of AARP, NFL, schools, larger churches, entertainment venues for their members/consumers. They will come, Ray. They'll take driverless cars for reasons they can't even fathom. They'll turn up on your driveway not knowing for sure why they're doing it. Oh, people will come Ray. People will most definitely come.
I would love to know what gas prices would be if we paid for all road construction and maintenance costs through gas tax revenue, even if just purely as an economic exercise.
RR, in your last comment, it sounds like you are arguing that driverless cars are the cars of the future more than the public transportation of the future. I'm more inclined to believe that driverless cars will gradually take over the role of old-fashioned steering-wheel cars and put taxi/uber drivers out of business, and maybe shut down some milk run bus routes, but big metro areas will likely still need higher capacity transit on trunk lines.
MnDOT has a page about their funding. The snapshot for 2015 includes how much they get from the fuel tax, how much it is per gallon, and what percentage of the highway budget it is. Also in the revenue are vehicle registration and sales tax but let's leave those unmodified for this exercise.
Total budget for 2016 is at the bottom, $3.11 billion, and they expect to get $897 million from the fuel tax. Subtract projected fees leaves $1,959 million to be funded and subtract the forecasted fuel tax gives $1,062 million. They handily included this tidbit: "In FY 15, 1¢ of gas tax generated ~$31.2 million in revenue to the HUTD". Divide that $31.2 million into the shortfall and we need to increase the fuel tax by 34 cents, for a total of about 62.5 cents to pay all of MnDOT. I recall current gas prices are about $2.20 a gallon so a ~16% increase would cover it.
I only observe conversations like this in one or two other places, and generally without the benefit of, you know, actual facts & figures.
Up until a few years back, the railroads were somehow paying for highways too. No idea how that worked.
I'm more inclined to believe that driverless cars will gradually take over the role of old-fashioned steering-wheel cars and put taxi/uber drivers out of business
actually, not quite what I was implying. Uber is investing big in driverless car technologies. It is MUCH more efficient to have vehicles employed most of the day driving passengers than to have them sitting in parking spots most of the day.
Road and highway infrastructure is significantly supported by gas taxes and vehicle fees. But to the degree that vehicles become more fuel-efficient, that improvement threatens funding. So, sure, that's a legit concern.
Buses are a major part of mass transit. If you've ever observed buses outside of rush hour and outside of major metro areas or high-density routes in college towns, you would notice that many buses drive around mostly empty. In order for any mass transit system to hope to cover operating costs via farebox revenue, the units typically have to be used to near capacity.
I'm not saying that there are no social benefits of mass transit. You can justify subsidizing mass transit for a variety of reasons. But I am saying that people make choices in their travel mode. The poor in urban areas often choose mass transit because they can't afford any other mode. The better off (working class on up) often choose other modes, including cars. Why? Because those modes suit their preferences better.
again, autonomous vehicles that can safely navigate roadways could dramatically alter the calculus of car ownership. Why pay the capital cost of a vehicle that (a) loses a huge share of its value through depreciation by driving it off the sales lot and (b) spends most of its life sitting in a parking spot when you could use an autonomous vehicle on demand?
smart data systems could certainly figure out how to coordinate multiple commuters to rideshare, reducing the number of vehicles on the road (or you could pay a premium to have the car to yourself) during peak times. That then becomes a miniaturized and administratively decentralized (peer-to-peer) mass transit system.
I'm with Rhu. The future is coming, and in that future a lot fewer of us will be driving our own vehicles to work by ourselves. Traditional mass transit systems may survive by providing arterial services into and out of major metro areas, but bus systems will be severely challenged because they are too slow and inefficient.
To some extent, the working poor will suffer because they often lack access to credit or internet payment services to utilize things like Uber and the next generation versions of Uber. Solve that problem, and you open up huge welfare improvements for the working poor who, today, may be saddled with hours-long bus commutes with multiple transfers to get where they need to go.
While autonomous vehicles are coming, it’s still entirely unclear what their arrival will bring. If everyone rides in an autonomous vehicle, there will be few if any accidents, which will allow for lighter, more fuel-efficient vehicles. And if people share these vehicles as they move about the city, the total miles driven each day will also decrease. Combine lighter cars with fewer miles traveled, and the amount of energy used to get people where they need to go drops by 80%. This, at least, is the “utopian scenario” in a recent study by researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Yet in the study’s “dystopian scenario,” energy consumption more than doubles as larger, privately owned vehicles travel longer distances. “You could imagine a consumer wanting to be able to cook dinner on their way home or to watch movies while the car is driving, and they could then not care if they lived close to their work place,” says lead author William Morrow.
Luís Bettencourt, a professor of complex systems at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico, who was not involved with the study, thinks a dystopian outcome is more likely. “I think the expectation is they would tend to make cities bigger and less dense,” he says. Bettencourt, whose research focuses on cities and urbanization, cites Marchetti’s constant. Named for the Venetian physicist who devised it, Marchetti’s constant states that throughout history, no matter where people lived or what form of transportation they used to get about, they have always spent and will continue to spend an average of 30 minutes each way getting to and from work. Autonomous vehicles could speed up commutes, allowing people to live farther apart, Bettencourt says.
...
Apart from technical issues, a significant challenge may simply be gaining widespread adoption. The best case scenario of the recent OECD study—where shared autonomous cars take nine out of ten vehicles off city streets—is based on the assumption that everyone rides in an autonomous vehicle and shares each trip with others headed in the same direction. If half of a city’s population continues to drive their own cars, the number of vehicles—and the amount of time people spend idling in traffic jams—could actually increase.
For the past quarter century, Singapore has imposed heavy taxes and licensing fees for car ownership that would be difficult to pass elsewhere. A BMW 435i that sells for $55,000 in the US costs $220,000 in Singapore after all taxes and fees. A $16,000 Ford Fiesta would set you back $108,000 in Singapore.
It seems that the studies examining the likely effects of autonomous automobiles produce somewhat conflicting, and not entirely sanguine, results depending on the ubiquity of usage:
Prediction is hard, especially about the future.
I will say that a comparison to residential patterns and real estate/rental prices in urban areas with good mass transit systems is probably instructive. In DC, for example, proximity to a Metro station commands a premium in the housing market (or at least it did back in the day), strongly implying that residents place a considerable value on access to mass transportation options. Or at least to access to the Metro.
Providing a cost-competitive (both time and money) alternative mode of commuting to/from work would, presumably, lessen the residential demand for proximity to Metro stations, implying an incentive for sprawl.
conversely, one of the most "negative" aspects of modern urban planning is the need for parking. It motivates the development of large shopping complexes surrounded by seas of parking spaces -- a major impediment to "walkability". Easy, cheap access to flexible, responsive transportation that didn't require parking assets would allow for much more compact development of retail commerce, shifting the commercial balance of power (potentially) away from the current model of malls back toward walkable retail districts (such as viable downtowns) or integrated retail and greenspace development.
We simply don't know what will happen in response to the arrival of our robot overlords, but Klaatu is definitely coming.
Similar to Rhu, I do not have a city well suited for public transportation. I tried to determine the proper bus routes to take, but it would end up taking over an hour, and I can make it in 20 minutes door to desk (which includes an 8 minute walk from the parking garage). But then, I live in a much smaller town.
If I could make my 45-minute bus ride into a 20-minute drive, I'd probably do it. How many miles is the drive to your parking garage?
4.5 miles. I've been tempted to bike it, but I'm not in the greatest shape, and there are some wary streets to cross. If I were a mile or two closer, I'd probably try it. I live in a town of 125K. The commute is incredibly short. Though I would imagine if I lived in a bigger city, I'd probably want to use public transport as well.
I have about an 18-mile commute, which usually takes 25-30 minutes door to door (with parking in my building). My parking costs me $135/month (pre-tax) and the drive itself costs me probably $5/day in marginal costs (gas, maintenance, ignoring the capital cost of the vehicle). So I'm probably spending on the order of $2,500 per year in commuting costs (round terms), or around $9-$10 per day in the office (I work some weekend days too).
My only mass transit option is a bus, which is quite inconvenient, takes about 45 minutes each way (express, plus a ten-minute walk at each end) and costs $120/month for a monthly pass. I generally am in the office from around 9 a.m. until 6 or 7 p.m. Taking the bus would tie me to a schedule that would not fit with my work load and needs (the latest express bus I could take in the morning leaves my nearest location at 7:11 a.m., and the latest return express leaves my nearest location at 5:40 p.m.).
If I could Uber on demand daily for $10 per round-trip, I could leave my car at home, break even on the marginal costs, and avoid the headaches of driving. That's not close to feasible with human-driven vehicles today.
My bike commute went from 28-36 minutes door to desk to 7 minutes on a paved bike path in a greenway. I'm going to be able to bike home for lunch when it's not a billion degrees plus 90% humidity. I'm stoked about that.
When I was at school in Madison I loved being able to take the bus in each day, for all the reasons listed above. I wish I could still do so. Alas, certainly not doable at my current job and house. I looked it up, and my 20-30 minute drive to work becomes a 3.5 hour bus and walking trip. Each way.
Oh yes. When we talked about moving, I wanted to make sure I could keep taking the bus.
We moved less than a half-mile, but I walk nearly thrice as far to catch the bus. Nearly an eighth of a mile!
I celebrated with a bit of aggressive acceleration this morning now that the engine is past the manufacturers recommended break in period.
This afternoon I will return to 40 mpg driving in deference to this day. (and then driving an additional 250 miles to my mom's house.)
The 22nd might be my favorite day of the month because I get my regular LTE mobile network speed back.
Nolan Ryan struck out 7 pairs of fathers and sons. Can you name them? I got 2
Bob Boone and Aaron Boone. Bob Boone and Bret Boone. Ken Griffey Jr. and Sr. ...
ok, I can't think of more on my own, so I am gonna cheat by finding lists of fathers and sons to have played. Felipe and Moises Alou. Sandy and Roberto Alomar. Jerry Hairston Jr. and Sr. Tito and Terry Francona.
Gah. I only got three: one of the Alomar pairs, the Franconas and the Griffeys. I missed the McRae's, the other Alomar pairing, the Wills', and the Schofields, and, inexplicably, the Bonds'. Oy. I completely whiffed(!) on the Boones, Alous and Hairstons.
Power surge took out the computer late last night (twice), but today it's fine. I'll be white-knuckling it for the rest of the laptop's life, though.
Too many days this year's where I've said "3 inches in the rain gauge "
Sigh.
I'd take one day like that. Not that I have a rain gauge and 90% of it would end up in the ocean anyways.
My sister's basement in very northern Iowa ( a mile from MN) ended up with 3-4 feet of water in her basement.
The PR's grandma's town on the Shell Rock River in Iowa (where both her parents are from) is suffering some pretty bad flooding. All the relatives are OK, but there is some property damage for sure.
The IL's in Albert Lea said they got 8" and are having sump issues now.
The first WGOM Convention took place nine years ago today.
Matt Trueblood wrote something beautiful on Facebook, and I wanted to share it more widely. The set up is that it's a picture of his son in a Bears jersey (Matt is a Packers fan).
These pictures are adorable and make me wish the Bears were really good. I love you Emerson. I believe almost without doubt in heaven, but it's so hard to know what it's like. All my prayer, all my discernment and consideration, makes me think it's mostly a place centered on worship, one in which we leave huge chunks of our Earthly selves behind. That's comforting most of the time: I want to see Emerson again, but I want our souls to recognize each other fully, to be whole and realized. I don't want to be an old man or for him to be a four-year-old. But then I look at pictures, and I imagine the pictures I'll never have of him (in the next Bears shirt, walking around, maybe even throwing a football around), and it just rips my heart out to know that even when I see him again, we probably won't care at all about the Packers and the Bears, and I won't have taught him to walk or throw a football around. I couldn't go on if it weren't for my faith in the idea that we all extend far beyond our humanity. To be human, in this life, is to be so caught up in the trivial and the ephemeral. But memories like this one make me realize what an excruciating loss death is, because I'm human right now, and that triviality and that ephemera all matters to me, and I can't make it not matter, and I can't share any of it with Emerson anymore. And it just hurts like Hell. Anyway, go Bears. Love you, E.
Thank you for sharing. It is beautiful and heartbreaking, hard not to get choked up reading it.
Thank you for sharing Matt. No need to hide that behind a spoiler.
Thanks Matt, as someone who lost a brother in my 20s and my wife in my 50s, I've thought about this issue often. I think one reason we are saddened by the death of a loved one is that WE can't share earthly experiences with them, not that they are unaware they happened. My brother died in 1986 and I regretted that he wasn't around for the Twins Works Series win in 1987. Oh he knows about it, but I couldn't share that experience with him. Now I have dealt with the death of adults, the death of a child must be crushing. Mostly for the reasons described so lovingly in your post.
I don't think there's a day that's gone by since I've become a dad that I haven't thought about Pops.
Strib: As the final hours of summer washed away, so was access to several roads and intersections in the metro area.
Reminded me of a bad analogy list: Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever.
Nice. I like Aparna Nancherla's "A bad analogy is like a cucumber."
Are we sure that wasn't a Survivor entry?
My thought, too
My best friend lost a daughter to stillbirth yesterday. She was nine weeks early.
It's Skim's birthday. When I spoke to my friend today I made a point not to bring this up. I was obsessively trying to figure out the "right" answer for what to do for him - what to say, what to give, what to feel. I've been through death enough to know there isn't a right answer, but this one is new and difficult on its own level.
Ugh.
I can't tell you how much I appreciate this exact response. There's just nothing else to say.
Good for you for being there for you friend anyway. You're right, there's nothing to say, but too many times we let that keep us from contacting people. It's a cliche, but the important thing is just that we be there for them.
So....Jose Reyes is back on the Mets. I had no idea.
I got over 70mpg driving home last night....
well, shoot, son, that's cruisin' speed on the ol' ike around here.
It's not actually a speed.
*squints* ohhh, yeah. oops.
Next thing you'll be saying you did the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs.
Now that we have our solar panels turned on (finally!), my wife's e-Golf is being powered by the sun.
I work from home and have no reason to use our Mazda today (that I know of).
I suspect I am in the minority on this, but I would not trade my commute on public transportation for driving to work every day (even if I could afford a parking spot). Obviously public transportation is not feasible alternative for every commute.
I really wish there was a better option as I hate driving (in general, though specifically in traffic), but not much where I'm situated.
CH, I'm definitely in your minority. My bus was standing room only this morning, but I still got in a little reading time.
All those youths going to school, crowding the buses. It is nice come middle of June when the availability of seats increases. I haven't had to stand in quite a while despite getting on toward the end of the trip. I am always able to find an open seat in the back.
I lived for 5 years in DC without a car. It was bliss.
I loved being carfree in Prague, where the infrasturcture is great.
I ride my bike as often as is practicable here in the Cities. Our new house will 100% mean I drive though.
I'm a big fan of public transportation over driving, but unfortunately wanting to take public transportation where I live is like wanting to practice crop rotation in the desert. Plus work-from-home is the trump card.
I think you are in the majority. With wifi on buses, it s much better than driving. I wish it worked for me.
Agreed. I do generally enjoy driving, which is why I insist on a stick, but taking public transportation to work would be wonderful.
Of course, my line of work tends to not allow me to work in cities large enough to have the infrastructure.
I'm with you, but I think there are still a lot of people that prefer to accept the uncertainty of traffic vs. the uncertainty of when the next bus will come, because it feels like you have more control over getting quickly to your destination if you are behind the wheel.
Public transportation has a chicken and egg problem. Need more routes to get more riders. Need more riders to get more routes.
My job requires use of a car during job hours. I also like the flexibility of going to stores on the way home to get groceries, cold supplies, etc. Or if god forbid a family emergency. I realize the car is more illusion of control, but it would be super stressful to have to rush to the hospital to see someone and have to rely on the bus to get there.
I figure for emergencies I would use a taxi.
Yes. I don't think a true emergency would be a problem.
The convenience issue is real, especially when you have kids.
This is what keeps me driving. Looking forward to (someday) using the express bus stop ~1 mile from my house.
That might depend on where you live. In rush hour in Manhattan, you might be better off taking the subway.
It's hard to talk about public transportation without talking about a specific place. Where I grew up, cars made a lot of sense--though we could still have done very well with fewer of them--but where I live now, I'll do just about anything to avoid driving. There's a world of difference driving 13 miles in 15 minutes and driving 13 miles in 50 minutes.
When we went from two cars to one car, I was really worried about various corner cases where I might want a second car, but it turned out that those fears never really materialized and I'm happy without having to pay the costs of parking, fuel, maintenance, and depreciation that come with a second car. We'll see how much having a kid changes that, but my hope is that by starting with one car, we'll adapt as we go.
I meant taxi as a stand-in for service that lets you go to an unusual spot on short notice, quickly.
Until recently, we had one working car with two kids. Honestly, it wasn't that difficult to do. We did get the other one fixed because we wanted the option for each of us to go separate places but I'm not sure that's even happened yet. I'm going to assume yes and I've simply forgotten.
EAR keeps saying we should get a second vehicle to simplify the one night a week three weeks a month that we're too busy. I keep deferring because I'll have to completely revamp the garage. (Can anyone fit six bikes, a rider mower, and two cars in a 2-car garage?
If and when we do it'll be as small a pickup as possible.
My employer uses a carrot & stick approach to boosting metro ridership. An annual faculty/staff bus pass is $24, with the balance subsidized by my institution. (A monthly pass is $65 for unlimited fares.) An annual parking permit runs $718-$1,235 depending on the lot you get.
My bus is an unofficial express route, meaning I cover five miles of urban/residential/downtown area in about half an hour. With some fancy driving I can shave about five minutes off the trip, at the expense of substantial stress, a half hour of reading/podcast time, and absolute indifference to the weather & driving conditions.
For someone with my earning power and in my socioeconomic class it's a no-brainer, even with finessing transportation to childcare.
We also had great public transportation, dismantled it, restructured our lives and cities around cars, and now struggle to get people to ride again.
Driverless cars are the public transportation of the future.
Not from a congestion/resource efficiency standpoint.
I disagree.
There's still a geometry problem. Per square foot, cars take up a lot of space per passenger, especially if you only have one or two in the car. Yes, AI can potentially improve traffic, but you can still only fit so many cars on the road even if they are bumper to bumper.
I think they'll be a piece of the puzzle, but not the cure-all.
Not only a geometry problem, although that's a big piece of it. Each separate car requires replication of powerplant/batteries, drivetrain, tires, mechanical systems (brakes, steering systems, suspension gear, etc.), and so on that are far more resource-inefficient than mass transit serving the same population of riders.
I don't look at driverless cars as being solo drivers. I'd think it would be small buses that would take people directly to their destinations in an efficient way.
So like driverless UberPool in shuttle buses? That could be a cool way to fill some gaps, especially in lower density places.
They're already out there.
🙂
I also disagree.
Yea, congestion and resource efficiency are two overlapping but slightly different issues.
Fixed-route mass transit systems impose a whole bunch of costs on both riders and society (since fixed routes are, you know, fixed, and since the systems almost never come close to covering their operating expenses through farebox revenue).
Driverless vehicles combined with ridesharing promise to dramatically reduce the numbers of cars on the road at peak times and overall, and perhaps more importantly, vastly reduce the requirements for parking.
For some reason we require mass transit to be revenue-neutral (or even revenue-generating), while road & highway infrastructure is not saddled with the same requirement. There's also the matter of less rigidly fixed-route mass transit, like BRT.
I am pessimistic about Americans suddenly gravitating toward P2P ridesharing as a transportation model at a societal scale. The matter of vehicle owners allowing the unsupervised operation of their vehicles for the benefit of strangers seems completely unprecedented outside of something like torrenting, SETI@home-style distributed computing, or (perhaps) Airbnb.
I think you're forgetting the Millennials. Many are not rushing out to get drivers' licenses, if they get them at all. They will embrace driverless vehicles. This is the Uber of the future. You'll find them owned (or leased from someone else) by the likes of AARP, NFL, schools, larger churches, entertainment venues for their members/consumers. They will come, Ray. They'll take driverless cars for reasons they can't even fathom. They'll turn up on your driveway not knowing for sure why they're doing it. Oh, people will come Ray. People will most definitely come.
I would love to know what gas prices would be if we paid for all road construction and maintenance costs through gas tax revenue, even if just purely as an economic exercise.
RR, in your last comment, it sounds like you are arguing that driverless cars are the cars of the future more than the public transportation of the future. I'm more inclined to believe that driverless cars will gradually take over the role of old-fashioned steering-wheel cars and put taxi/uber drivers out of business, and maybe shut down some milk run bus routes, but big metro areas will likely still need higher capacity transit on trunk lines.
MnDOT has a page about their funding. The snapshot for 2015 includes how much they get from the fuel tax, how much it is per gallon, and what percentage of the highway budget it is. Also in the revenue are vehicle registration and sales tax but let's leave those unmodified for this exercise.
Total budget for 2016 is at the bottom, $3.11 billion, and they expect to get $897 million from the fuel tax. Subtract projected fees leaves $1,959 million to be funded and subtract the forecasted fuel tax gives $1,062 million. They handily included this tidbit: "In FY 15, 1¢ of gas tax generated ~$31.2 million in revenue to the HUTD". Divide that $31.2 million into the shortfall and we need to increase the fuel tax by 34 cents, for a total of about 62.5 cents to pay all of MnDOT. I recall current gas prices are about $2.20 a gallon so a ~16% increase would cover it.
Edit: PA is the highest at 50.4 cents per gallon.
Once again, in case anyone wasn't certain
I only observe conversations like this in one or two other places, and generally without the benefit of, you know, actual facts & figures.
Up until a few years back, the railroads were somehow paying for highways too. No idea how that worked.
actually, not quite what I was implying. Uber is investing big in driverless car technologies. It is MUCH more efficient to have vehicles employed most of the day driving passengers than to have them sitting in parking spots most of the day.
Road and highway infrastructure is significantly supported by gas taxes and vehicle fees. But to the degree that vehicles become more fuel-efficient, that improvement threatens funding. So, sure, that's a legit concern.
Buses are a major part of mass transit. If you've ever observed buses outside of rush hour and outside of major metro areas or high-density routes in college towns, you would notice that many buses drive around mostly empty. In order for any mass transit system to hope to cover operating costs via farebox revenue, the units typically have to be used to near capacity.
I'm not saying that there are no social benefits of mass transit. You can justify subsidizing mass transit for a variety of reasons. But I am saying that people make choices in their travel mode. The poor in urban areas often choose mass transit because they can't afford any other mode. The better off (working class on up) often choose other modes, including cars. Why? Because those modes suit their preferences better.
again, autonomous vehicles that can safely navigate roadways could dramatically alter the calculus of car ownership. Why pay the capital cost of a vehicle that (a) loses a huge share of its value through depreciation by driving it off the sales lot and (b) spends most of its life sitting in a parking spot when you could use an autonomous vehicle on demand?
smart data systems could certainly figure out how to coordinate multiple commuters to rideshare, reducing the number of vehicles on the road (or you could pay a premium to have the car to yourself) during peak times. That then becomes a miniaturized and administratively decentralized (peer-to-peer) mass transit system.
I'm with Rhu. The future is coming, and in that future a lot fewer of us will be driving our own vehicles to work by ourselves. Traditional mass transit systems may survive by providing arterial services into and out of major metro areas, but bus systems will be severely challenged because they are too slow and inefficient.
To some extent, the working poor will suffer because they often lack access to credit or internet payment services to utilize things like Uber and the next generation versions of Uber. Solve that problem, and you open up huge welfare improvements for the working poor who, today, may be saddled with hours-long bus commutes with multiple transfers to get where they need to go.
It seems that the studies examining the likely effects of autonomous automobiles produce somewhat conflicting, and not entirely sanguine, results depending on the ubiquity of usage:
Prediction is hard, especially about the future.
I will say that a comparison to residential patterns and real estate/rental prices in urban areas with good mass transit systems is probably instructive. In DC, for example, proximity to a Metro station commands a premium in the housing market (or at least it did back in the day), strongly implying that residents place a considerable value on access to mass transportation options. Or at least to access to the Metro.
Providing a cost-competitive (both time and money) alternative mode of commuting to/from work would, presumably, lessen the residential demand for proximity to Metro stations, implying an incentive for sprawl.
conversely, one of the most "negative" aspects of modern urban planning is the need for parking. It motivates the development of large shopping complexes surrounded by seas of parking spaces -- a major impediment to "walkability". Easy, cheap access to flexible, responsive transportation that didn't require parking assets would allow for much more compact development of retail commerce, shifting the commercial balance of power (potentially) away from the current model of malls back toward walkable retail districts (such as viable downtowns) or integrated retail and greenspace development.
We simply don't know what will happen in response to the arrival of our robot overlords, but Klaatu is definitely coming.
Similar to Rhu, I do not have a city well suited for public transportation. I tried to determine the proper bus routes to take, but it would end up taking over an hour, and I can make it in 20 minutes door to desk (which includes an 8 minute walk from the parking garage). But then, I live in a much smaller town.
If I could make my 45-minute bus ride into a 20-minute drive, I'd probably do it. How many miles is the drive to your parking garage?
4.5 miles. I've been tempted to bike it, but I'm not in the greatest shape, and there are some wary streets to cross. If I were a mile or two closer, I'd probably try it. I live in a town of 125K. The commute is incredibly short. Though I would imagine if I lived in a bigger city, I'd probably want to use public transport as well.
I have about an 18-mile commute, which usually takes 25-30 minutes door to door (with parking in my building). My parking costs me $135/month (pre-tax) and the drive itself costs me probably $5/day in marginal costs (gas, maintenance, ignoring the capital cost of the vehicle). So I'm probably spending on the order of $2,500 per year in commuting costs (round terms), or around $9-$10 per day in the office (I work some weekend days too).
My only mass transit option is a bus, which is quite inconvenient, takes about 45 minutes each way (express, plus a ten-minute walk at each end) and costs $120/month for a monthly pass. I generally am in the office from around 9 a.m. until 6 or 7 p.m. Taking the bus would tie me to a schedule that would not fit with my work load and needs (the latest express bus I could take in the morning leaves my nearest location at 7:11 a.m., and the latest return express leaves my nearest location at 5:40 p.m.).
If I could Uber on demand daily for $10 per round-trip, I could leave my car at home, break even on the marginal costs, and avoid the headaches of driving. That's not close to feasible with human-driven vehicles today.
My bike commute went from 28-36 minutes door to desk to 7 minutes on a paved bike path in a greenway. I'm going to be able to bike home for lunch when it's not a billion degrees plus 90% humidity. I'm stoked about that.
When I was at school in Madison I loved being able to take the bus in each day, for all the reasons listed above. I wish I could still do so. Alas, certainly not doable at my current job and house. I looked it up, and my 20-30 minute drive to work becomes a 3.5 hour bus and walking trip. Each way.
Oh yes. When we talked about moving, I wanted to make sure I could keep taking the bus.
We moved less than a half-mile, but I walk nearly thrice as far to catch the bus. Nearly an eighth of a mile!
I celebrated with a bit of aggressive acceleration this morning now that the engine is past the manufacturers recommended break in period.
This afternoon I will return to 40 mpg driving in deference to this day. (and then driving an additional 250 miles to my mom's house.)
The 22nd might be my favorite day of the month because I get my regular LTE mobile network speed back.
Nolan Ryan struck out 7 pairs of fathers and sons. Can you name them? I got 2
Ouch. I didn't even do as good as I thought.
Nor as well as you thought. 😉
In almost-two-years, this is where I'm going to tell you to shut up.
I'll be an honor to be in such good company . . . in 614 days.
Wow. That was embarrassing for you.
I'm satisfied with four.
Also, this is how I found out Larry Parrish is not related to Lance Parrish.
He did face the Express. His son did not.
Man, I suck
Great trivia question. My likely pathetic guess:
Power surge took out the computer late last night (twice), but today it's fine. I'll be white-knuckling it for the rest of the laptop's life, though.
Too many days this year's where I've said "3 inches in the rain gauge "
Sigh.
I'd take one day like that. Not that I have a rain gauge and 90% of it would end up in the ocean anyways.
My sister's basement in very northern Iowa ( a mile from MN) ended up with 3-4 feet of water in her basement.
The PR's grandma's town on the Shell Rock River in Iowa (where both her parents are from) is suffering some pretty bad flooding. All the relatives are OK, but there is some property damage for sure.
The IL's in Albert Lea said they got 8" and are having sump issues now.
The first WGOM Convention took place nine years ago today.
Matt Trueblood wrote something beautiful on Facebook, and I wanted to share it more widely. The set up is that it's a picture of his son in a Bears jersey (Matt is a Packers fan).
Thank you for sharing. It is beautiful and heartbreaking, hard not to get choked up reading it.
Thank you for sharing Matt. No need to hide that behind a spoiler.
Thanks Matt, as someone who lost a brother in my 20s and my wife in my 50s, I've thought about this issue often. I think one reason we are saddened by the death of a loved one is that WE can't share earthly experiences with them, not that they are unaware they happened. My brother died in 1986 and I regretted that he wasn't around for the Twins Works Series win in 1987. Oh he knows about it, but I couldn't share that experience with him. Now I have dealt with the death of adults, the death of a child must be crushing. Mostly for the reasons described so lovingly in your post.
I don't think there's a day that's gone by since I've become a dad that I haven't thought about Pops.
Strib: As the final hours of summer washed away, so was access to several roads and intersections in the metro area.
Reminded me of a bad analogy list: Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever.
Nice. I like Aparna Nancherla's "A bad analogy is like a cucumber."
Are we sure that wasn't a Survivor entry?
My thought, too
My best friend lost a daughter to stillbirth yesterday. She was nine weeks early.
It's Skim's birthday. When I spoke to my friend today I made a point not to bring this up. I was obsessively trying to figure out the "right" answer for what to do for him - what to say, what to give, what to feel. I've been through death enough to know there isn't a right answer, but this one is new and difficult on its own level.
Ugh.
I can't tell you how much I appreciate this exact response. There's just nothing else to say.
Good for you for being there for you friend anyway. You're right, there's nothing to say, but too many times we let that keep us from contacting people. It's a cliche, but the important thing is just that we be there for them.
So....Jose Reyes is back on the Mets. I had no idea.