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:
https://youtu.be/UNEbH4pDOts?si=qkHONKWwnhyOvbLN
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 is an excellent blog post by entrepreneur and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla about some of the "instigators" that are working to help solve our climate crisis and some of the areas in which we probably should be focusing on next. One of the things that's noteworthy about the post is that he distills it all down into 12 areas of focus that -- if solved and if scaled -- could have a material impact on carbon emissions. They are (verbatim):
Electric vehicles & automotive batteries
Food & agriculture, especially meat
Low carbon transportation: Air transportation (jet fuel), shipping (electrofuels, biofuels?)
Cement or substitute construction material
Low carbon dispatchable electricity generation (fusion, geothermal, nuclear)
Public transit
Grid storage (long duration battery storage)
HVAC
Industrial processes (hydrogen?)
Fertilizer (hydrogen)
Water
Steel
Looking at this list, it is clear that some of these things are already happening (and some aren't). I currently own an ICE vehicle, but I'm fairly certain it will be the last non-electric vehicle I ever own. It's also not clear whether I will want to continue owning a car. Dynamic mass transit and overall autonomy are things that we've talked a lot about on this blog.
But here's the other idea put forward in Khosla's post. If these are in fact the 12 most impactful and important categories, then we may only be 12 or so companies away from real solutions. We only be 12 or so entrepreneurs away from meaningful societal change. When you look at it this way, the climate crisis should hopefully feel a lot less daunting.
I just learned about the ongoing legal dispute on Martin’s Beach (south of San Francisco) through this New York Times article.
To briefly sum it up, tech billionaire Vinod Khosla bought a 53-acre beachside village known as Martin’s Beach in 2008. On the land is about 47 beach houses, a shop that sold ice cream at one point in its life, and a road that provides the only access to the beach. The road is private, but over the years and before Khosla purchased the property, it provided both parking for and access to the beach.
After acquiring the property, the county told Khosla that he had 2 options with respect to the road:
(1) Keep it open (there’s a gate that controls access). And charge no more than $2 a car for parking, which was the rate charged in 1972.
(2) Apply for a Coastal Development Permit to change how the access works.
Khosla opted to do neither and in turn the residents of Martin’s Beach sued him. He’s been in a legal battle ever since. But according to the New York Times, he has about $3 billion sitting in his war chest. For him it is both a matter of principle and a matter of protecting property rights.
Not surprisingly, tech billionaire fighting to keep people off a public beach makes for a sensational headline in the media. The NY Times argued that every generation has some sort of rich Californian fighting to privatize the waterfront. Khosla is this generation’s “beach villain”.
But beneath the headlines lies a fascinating legal debate that you can read more about through a blog post that Khosla published earlier this year. For you property lawyers out there, I would be curious to hear your thoughts in the comment section below.
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:
https://youtu.be/UNEbH4pDOts?si=qkHONKWwnhyOvbLN
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 is an excellent blog post by entrepreneur and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla about some of the "instigators" that are working to help solve our climate crisis and some of the areas in which we probably should be focusing on next. One of the things that's noteworthy about the post is that he distills it all down into 12 areas of focus that -- if solved and if scaled -- could have a material impact on carbon emissions. They are (verbatim):
Electric vehicles & automotive batteries
Food & agriculture, especially meat
Low carbon transportation: Air transportation (jet fuel), shipping (electrofuels, biofuels?)
Cement or substitute construction material
Low carbon dispatchable electricity generation (fusion, geothermal, nuclear)
Public transit
Grid storage (long duration battery storage)
HVAC
Industrial processes (hydrogen?)
Fertilizer (hydrogen)
Water
Steel
Looking at this list, it is clear that some of these things are already happening (and some aren't). I currently own an ICE vehicle, but I'm fairly certain it will be the last non-electric vehicle I ever own. It's also not clear whether I will want to continue owning a car. Dynamic mass transit and overall autonomy are things that we've talked a lot about on this blog.
But here's the other idea put forward in Khosla's post. If these are in fact the 12 most impactful and important categories, then we may only be 12 or so companies away from real solutions. We only be 12 or so entrepreneurs away from meaningful societal change. When you look at it this way, the climate crisis should hopefully feel a lot less daunting.
I just learned about the ongoing legal dispute on Martin’s Beach (south of San Francisco) through this New York Times article.
To briefly sum it up, tech billionaire Vinod Khosla bought a 53-acre beachside village known as Martin’s Beach in 2008. On the land is about 47 beach houses, a shop that sold ice cream at one point in its life, and a road that provides the only access to the beach. The road is private, but over the years and before Khosla purchased the property, it provided both parking for and access to the beach.
After acquiring the property, the county told Khosla that he had 2 options with respect to the road:
(1) Keep it open (there’s a gate that controls access). And charge no more than $2 a car for parking, which was the rate charged in 1972.
(2) Apply for a Coastal Development Permit to change how the access works.
Khosla opted to do neither and in turn the residents of Martin’s Beach sued him. He’s been in a legal battle ever since. But according to the New York Times, he has about $3 billion sitting in his war chest. For him it is both a matter of principle and a matter of protecting property rights.
Not surprisingly, tech billionaire fighting to keep people off a public beach makes for a sensational headline in the media. The NY Times argued that every generation has some sort of rich Californian fighting to privatize the waterfront. Khosla is this generation’s “beach villain”.
But beneath the headlines lies a fascinating legal debate that you can read more about through a blog post that Khosla published earlier this year. For you property lawyers out there, I would be curious to hear your thoughts in the comment section below.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog