Here's what we know:

In the mid-20th century, the US made a pivotal choice that shaped its cities, economy and lifestyle. It chose highways and cars over public transit. At the time, this seemed like the future: the freedom of the open road, the allure of suburban living, and the booming post-second world war economy all converged to push America towards a car-centric culture.

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 cemented this vision, unleashing a highway system that encouraged suburban sprawl, fuelled the automotive industry and sidelined public transit. Rail systems were seen as relics of a slow, industrial-era technology ill-suited to America’s postwar aspirations. The car was king. 

But this congested system is breaking. In 1950 about 30 per cent of the world’s population lived in cities. By 2030 this is expected to reach 60 per cent. Infrastructure cannot keep up with this growth. An increase in cars further reduces street capacity.

What we don't have a clear consensus on, though, is the path forward. Is it more highways? More public transit? More bike lanes? Or will autonomous vehicles finally arrive and bail us out? The answer will depend on who you ask.

In this recent opinion piece, venture capitalist Vinod Khosla makes the case for something else: personal rapid transit systems (or PRT). Conveniently, he also happens to be an investor in one -- a company called Glydways.

The promise is an on-demand mass transit system that offers the convenience of a personal car, but with the capacities and price points of public transit. And it is based on small autonomous vehicles riding in their own dedicated lanes.

Each lane only needs to be 1.5 meters wide, which is less than the 2.3 meters that the Dutch see as the ideal width of a one-way bike lane. And with this, the company claims that it can reach capacities of up to 10,800 people per hour.

To further put this into perspective, the standard width of a two-way parking drive aisle here in Toronto is 6 meters. So this would mean that each drive aisle could, in theory, have 4 lanes dedicated to these "Glydcars." That's how narrow they are.

Here's a video of them in operation:

This, of course, isn't an entirely new idea. You might remember that Masdar City in Abu Dhabi claims to have opened the world's first PRT system in 2010 -- a 1.4 km line with only two stations. That said, Glydways has already been awarded three projects in the US. So for fun, I think I'll keep an eye on them.

This week, Lyft announced that it is going to be selling its autonomous vehicle division to Toyota for some $550 million. (Apparently $200 million of this will be paid upfront, with the remaining $350 million paid out over a five year period.) This is notable because Uber did the exact same thing last year when it sold its autonomous vehicle business to Aurora (which happens to be working with Toyota), and because the reasons for selling seem clear: getting to full autonomy is going to cost a bunch more money and both Uber and Lyft are determined to reach profitability sooner rather than later.

The other thing that you might be able to glean from these announcements is that neither company seemingly feels like they need to fully own/control the autonomous piece. Presumably the thinking is that someone else can spend the money on developing full autonomy and they'll just stick to building out their ride-hailing network. Once we have autonomous taxis, they'll need a network to run on anyway, right? I guess. But wouldn't this dramatically undermine the network effects of Uber and Lyft?

If you go back to Uber's S-1, there was a diagram that explained Uber's "liquidity network effect." See above. It starts with more drivers and more supply (1), because more cars driving around means that wait times and fares are lower (2) and so more people are likely to use Uber (3). Network size matters. But if you no longer have drivers -- only autonomous vehicles -- isn't it relatively easy to add more supply to any network? I suppose this partially depends on how the ownership structure will end up working for these autonomous taxis. Still, I wonder about the barriers to entry under this scenario.

LA-based startup, Canoo, is trying to rethink urban transport and, more specifically, how people use and consume electric vehicles. They aren't planning on launching in Los Angeles until next year, but here's what is apparent so far.

(1) The vehicles (pictured above) are far more utilitarian in their design -- though still attractive. The focus does not seem to be on creating objects of desire, which is how cars have historically been sold.

(2) The interiors are more living room-like in their seating configurations. This makes them feel less like a car and more like public transit (or a prom party limo).

(3) The plan is for these vehicles to be available through a commitment-free monthly membership, as opposed to through a traditional lease or purchase option.

These features are the sorts of things that many have been predicting would happen. But they remain signals for the future of the "car." They are also perfectly well suited to autonomy.

If you'd like to join their waitlist, you can do that here. I just did and apparently I'm #5967 in line. I have no idea when they hope to launch in Toronto, but who doesn't love a good waitlist? The illusion of scarcity can be a powerful motivator.

Update: My position in line has improved to #229 because of all of the "referrals" generated by this post. Canoo has done a good job using their waitlist system to generate exposure and solicit early customer feedback.

Update: #46.

Image: Canoo