Tag: driving

• Young people are driving a lot less

  As a kid growing up in the suburbs, I got my driver’s license the day I turned 16. Being able to drive was a big deal. But we know that this desire to drive has been changing in profound ways. Here’s some recent stats on the percentage of licensed drivers in the US by age (taken from the WSJ):

  

  In 1983, about 46% of 16-year-olds had a driver’s license. By 2014, this number had dropped to 24.5%, which is the lowest it has been in recent years, and was probably impacted by the broader economy. As of 2017, this number was up to about 26%.

  If you’re a car company, I would imagine that these are pretty important numbers. They represent the top of the sales funnel. Most people probably like to have a driver’s license in hand before they go out and buy a car.

  Supposedly, some people in Detroit are betting that young people will still eventually buy a car. And when they do, it’ll be a nice big one like an SUV or a truck. But, the data suggests that it is not just young people who are eschewing driving.

  Here’s some data from the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (via NPR), looking at the proportion of licensed drivers in the US by all age categories:

  

  While the biggest drop has certainly happened among younger generations, licensing is still down for older cohorts. Based on these numbers, we don’t hit parity until somewhere around 50 to 54 years old.

  And the only cohorts where licensing has increased significantly are when people reach over 55. Over 70 is up by a huge margin — more than the drop among 16 year olds — which is probably a symptom of people living longer.

  Some of this decrease among young people can probably be attributed to delayed family formation and people living in denser urban environments, where it is more convenient to get around without a car. But I don’t think that’s all of it.

  Which suggests to me that the race to autonomy is a pretty important one to win.

  2019.04.21

• The post-combustion era

  Over the winter I visited BMW World, and its neighboring museum, in Munich, Germany.

  I loved seeing how the company got its start and how far it has come since it helped to invent the automobile at the beginning of the 20th century. I think their first product was actually an airplane engine.

  But you and I both know that the paradigm is changing. The internal combustion engine (ICE) is going away and pretty soon we won’t be driving, so much as being driven around by our cars.

  Bloomberg recently published an interesting article about this shift and about BMW. Here is an excerpt:

  The fact that both combustion engines and electric motors find themselves inside the same 18,000-person complex in Dingolfing, BMW’s largest in Europe, makes it a microcosm of a shift overtaking automakers the world over. A visitor can see that 625-horsepower engine—more than twice as powerful as the original from 1985, a luxury product relentlessly branded as “the ultimate driving machine”—then walk around the corner and see its puny electric replacement. You start thinking the better slogan might be “the ultimate combustion engine.” As in: last of its kind.

  Electric motors are a hell of a lot simpler to manufacture (and service) than gasoline engines. BMW estimates that they take about 30% less time to make. So the impacts of this transformation span everything from supply chain to human capital.

  Today, about 10% of the work that goes on in Dingolfing is related to electric vehicles.

  2019.04.11

• Manhattan is getting a congestion pricing zone

  About a year ago I wrote about how NYC is considering a congestion charge on vehicles entering Manhattan below 60th street. Well it looks like that plan could be adopted as early as April 1 (however the fees won’t start until 2021).

  Here’s a map of the proposed congestion pricing zone from the NY Times:

  

  I have written extensively on road pricing over the years and so I won’t repeat myself here today. Suffice to say that I think creating a sustainable funding source for transit and other mobility options is a positive step forward.

  2019.03.29

• 200 km/h on the Autobahn

  We drove on the Autobahn today. Our Ford remained as smooth as ever. They take their cars seriously here and force regular inspections.

  But this got me wondering about safety records and why more countries haven’t adopted similar approaches to highway driving.

  Here is Germany’s 2014 record from Wikipedia:

  

  It turns out that the injury and fatality rates on the Autobahn — measured per billion vehicle kilometers traveled — are actually relatively low compared to urban and rural road classes.

  It is also relatively low compared to international standards. Here is a 2012 comparison, also via Wikipedia:

  

  Europe as a whole does very well in this regard (not that this specifically addresses Autobahn safety). Generally, fatalities have declined significantly over the last few decades.

  Here is a chart from the World Health Organization:

  

  What is clear to me after seeing this data, though, is that the greater problem looks to exist outside of our highways and motorways.

  2019.02.22

• Mobility at CES

  CES is underway right now in Las Vegas. About 200,000 people are in attendance. 

  Since tech and mobility are today closely intertwined, the show has become an important platform for the automative industry.

  Here is a video showcasing BMW’s new iNext concept (expected by 2021):

  [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9-f3cALABk&w=560&h=315]

  It is based on level 3 autonomy, which means the car will do mostly everything, but you need to be ready to take over at any time.

  The video is interesting because it begins to show you what becomes possible when you no longer need to pay attention to the road. It is a bit like flying (but hopefully more enjoyable). 

  And here is a video of Bell’s new urban air taxi, which is called Nexus (expected by the mid-2020s):

  [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o4d8N-A1G8&w=560&h=315]

  This is the company’s first concept. But they’ve been working with Uber since 2017 to develop a network of flying taxis for cities.

  Finally, flying cars.

  2019.01.10

• A decentralizing or centralizing force?

  I was on two panel discussions over the last week and, as is the case with all real estate panels, the topic of parking invariably came up, as did the impact of autonomous vehicles.

  There seems to be a general consensus that the advent of driverless cars will result in less demand for parking. Every developer I know is trying to build as little parking as possible and is thinking about how – when the time comes – they might convert their parking into something more productive. I have yet to speak to anyone who is building excess parking in order to prepare for autonomy.

  Where there’s a split, however, is whether autonomous vehicles will represent a decentralizing or a centralizing force for our cities. Historically, new technologies have lowered transportation costs and encouraged decentralization. Before the advent of rail, the US population hugged the coasts, because it was cheaper to navigate across the Atlantic than it was to move inland.

  A similar phenomenon also played out with our streetcar suburbs and with our car-oriented suburbs. These new technologies made it possible for people to travel further distances in order to get to work and other places. So it is not at all surprising that many people today are inferring that autonomous vehicles will produce this same outcome.

  But there is a counterargument. 

  We know that the demand for transportation services is highly elastic. Uber and other ride sharing apps have demonstrated this to us. Lower fares translate into dramatic increases in demand. So the opposing argument is that as the cost per kilometer drops – autonomous electric vehicles are going to be much more cost effective to operate – we’re going to see boatloads of induced demand.

  This induced demand will then force us to look toward road pricing and other demand management tools in order to cope, which then begs the question: How much cheaper and more convenient will autonomous vehicles really be? 

  At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that autonomous vehicles should correct many of the inefficiencies currently caused by humans acting like humans. There is also the opportunity to operate these autonomous vehicles more like public transit than as personal vehicles. And that will have a profound impact on urban mobility.

  Still, it is not yet clear, at least for me, that autonomous vehicles will be the decentralizing force that many assume they will be.

  2018.11.21

• A moral compass for autonomous vehicles

  One of the challenges that self-driving vehicles present is not about technology per se, it is about ethics. The typical example scenario is this one: If a pedestrian were to step out in front of an autonomous vehicle illegally, should the car be programmed to hit the pedestrian or veer off the road at the risk of potentially harming its passengers?

  I believe that self-driving vehicles will ultimately result in fewer accidents. Statistically they will be safer. But self-driving vehicles, particularly early on, are going to get a lot of attention when they do get into accidents, even if they are still safer as a whole. And that’s because they will make for good headlines.

  Safety and statistics aside, in turns out that the answer to the above moral question could depend on where you’re from. Nature recently published what they are calling the largest ever survey of “machine ethics.” And out of this survey they discovered some pretty distinct regional variations across the 130 different countries that responded.

  The responses were able to be grouped into 3 main buckets: Western, Eastern, and Southern. Here is the moral compass that was published in Nature:

  

  And here are a few examples. In North America and in some European countries where Christianity has historically dominated, there was a preference to sacrifice older lives for younger ones. So that would guide how one might program the car for the case in which a pedestrian steps out in front.

  In countries with strong government institutions, such as Japan and Finland, people were more likely to say that the pedestrian – who, remember, stepped out onto the road illegally – should be hit. Whereas countries with a high level of income inequality, often chose to kill poorer people in order to save richer people. Colombia, for example, responded this way.

  Also interesting is the ethical paradox that this discussion raises. Throughout the survey, many people responded by saying that, in our example here, the pedestrian should be saved at the expense of the passengers. But they also responded by saying that they would never ever buy a car that would do this. Their safety comes first in the buying decision. And I can see that.

  There’s an argument that these are fairly low probability scenarios. I mean, the last time you swerved your car, you probably weren’t driving on the edge of a cliff where any deviation from the path meant you would tumble to your death. But I still think that these are infinitely interesting questions that will need to be answered. And perhaps the answer will depend on which city you’re in.

  2018.10.28

• Lyft announces subscription plan

  Last week, Lyft announced a new subscription plan. 

  It costs $299 every 30 days and you get 30 rides included (up to $15 each). So it represents a possible 1/3 discount on rides. If you go over the 30 rides per month or over $15 on any one ride, you simply pay the difference. Though as a subscriber, you get 5% off additional rides.

  Subscriptions are good for business. They can be like an annuity. And I suspect that with the above model, there will be unutilized rides every month that the company is just able to bank. You can’t carryover rides with this plan.

  But moreover, Lyft’s “All-Access Plan” is designed to help you ditch your car. Trade your car payment for a ride subscription plan. So if the numbers didn’t quite work for you before, maybe they do now. Depending on the situation, I can certainly see this plan being cost effective.

  But as ride hailing/sharing continues to nibble away at public transportation and personal vehicle ownership, what will this mean for cities?

  2018.10.22

• Red streetcar tracks

  A few months ago when I wrote about “Toronto’s great streets” I mentioned that Queens Quay West – while magnificent – has had its share of issues. Cyclists and pedestrians often find themselves battling for space. And drivers are consistently driving in the wrong places.

  Part of the problem, I think, is that the turning radii (among other things) are a bit atypical and unusual compared to the rest of the city. And so if you’re at all in mental autopilot, it can be fairly easy to make a wrong turn. You really have to be paying attention.

  Below is a screenshot from Google Street View showing the foot of Lower Spadina, looking east on Queens Quay West. If you’re making a left turn from the former onto the latter, you need to end up on the left (north) of the streetcar tracks (even though the tracks themselves might be directing you elsewhere).

  

  There’s lots of signage telling you not to drive onto the tracks, but that hasn’t really been working. So the tracks were recently painted in bright red. You can see what that looks like here. Some people are still getting mixed up, but it’s certainly more noticeable.

  What I am wondering today is whether all of this signage and paint should be considered a symptom of poor design. In other words: Should good design require few instructions? Or, is this simply a normal part of iterative city building?

  What do you think?

  2018.09.08

• Is Tesla the new iPhone?

  

  Benedict Evans just published a great post on his blog about “Tesla, software and disruption.” I recommend a full read. In it, he tries to answer whether Tesla is really “the new iPhone” and if it will be as disruptive to the car landscape as some/many people think.

  In his line of thinking, electric (as opposed to an ICE vehicle) feels a lot more like a sustaining innovation, rather than a disruptive innovation. In other words, it something that incumbents will be able to incorporate. So it will not change the “basis of competition.”

  The more critical aspect is instead autonomy. Here are two snippets from the piece:

  All of this takes us to autonomy. Electric is compelling but will probably be a commodity, whereas Tesla’s improvements on top of electric may not be commodities but are not necessarily decisive. Autonomy changes the world in profound ways (I wrote about this here), and it’s a fundamentally new technology that doesn’t look at all like a commodity. And Tesla is doing this, too. Sort of.

  In this competition, Tesla’s thesis is that the data it can collect from its cars will give it a crucial advantage. The only reason that anyone is interested in autonomy today is that the emergence of machine learning (ML) in the last 5 years probably gives us a way to make it work. Machine learning, in turn, is about extracting patterns from large amounts of data, and then matching things against those patterns. So how much data do you have?
  

  But even if we are to all agree that autonomy is the “disruptive innovation”, it is not yet clear who will get there first. Maybe it is Tesla. Maybe it is Waymo. Regardless, many or most people seem to agree that it will arrive in 202x.

  Image: Tesla

  2018.09.02