Jacques Leslie: Self-Driving Cars - Utopia or Dystopia?→

Yale360:

“Automated cars, often referred to as “autonomous vehicles” (AVs) — whose passengers determine their routes without having to drive them — are being widely developed and tested, and probably will be used commercially in controlled settings within a few years. Lyft, Uber, and others have introduced ride-sharing, in which customers agree to travel with strangers in return for reduced fares. Put all three concepts together in one vehicle, posit that within a few decades this shared EV-AV technology will take over the nation’s automobile fleet, and the outcome seems environmentally irresistible, verging on fantastical.

But it’s equally plausible that the vision may turn out to be a mirage. Automated vehicles may eventually be widely adopted, but if the fleet is not electrified using renewable energy, or car sharing fails to take off, greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution could actually increase. A study last year by University of California, Davis researchers projected that if vehicles are automated but not electrified or shared, greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector would go up 50 percent by 2050 compared to business as usual. But if shared, electrified, automated vehicles flourish, greenhouse gas emissions could plunge by 80 percent, the study concluded⁠.”

Brad Dokken: Vehicle at Bottom of Lake?→

Brainerd Dispatch:

“Thompson, who aptly is nicknamed “Seal,” says Tri-State Diving does anywhere from 10 to 15 salvage operations in a typical winter. As of mid-January, the company already had pulled nine ATVs, vehicles or fish houses from lakes across the region, and more jobs await them when weather conditions improve. “It’s getting to be more and more because of how well we’re getting known and insurance companies calling us direct,” Thompson said. “‘Dirty Jobs’ put us on the map.”

Tri-State shoots photos or video of all of its retrieval jobs and posts the footage on Facebook, Thompson said, which also helps to spread the word. “Plus, there are a lot of the areas where conservation officers know the kind of work we do, and they refer (people) to us,” he said.

Tri-State uses a device called a SUVE (pronounced soo-vee)—which stands for Submerged Underwater Vehicle Extractor—for retrieving vehicles. In very basic terms, the SUVE is like a big teeter totter with a winch on the top to raise whatever’s submerged to the surface. Thompson has patents on both the apparatus and the teeter-totter concept it employs, he says. “It’s just two rails (the vehicle) rides up, and once it’s up on top and gets past center, we just bring it down on the ice,” Thompson said.”

Eric Jaffe: The Biggest Highway Boondoggles→

CityLab:

“When Texas expanded the Katy Freeway in Houston a few years back, the expectation was that making the massive road even wider would relieve traffic. Some $2.8 billion later, the 26-lane interstate laid claim to being the “world’s widest freeway”—but the drivers who commuted along it every day were no better off. More lanes simply invited more cars, and by 2014, morning and evening travel times had increased by 30 and 55 percent, respectively, over 2011.

The lesson of the Katy Freeway is precisely the one that U.S. PIRG hopes to convey in its new report, “Highway Boondoggles 2,” the sequel to a 2014 effort. Given that expanding highways at great public cost doesn’t improve rush-hour traffic, there are better ways to spend this money, argue report authors Jeff Inglis of Frontier Group and John C. Olivieri of U.S. PIRG. They identify a dozen road projects, costing $24 billion in all, that are “representative” of the problem:

”America does not have the luxury of wasting tens of billions of dollars on new highways of questionable value. State and federal decision-makers should reevaluate the need for the projects profiled in this report and others that no longer make sense in an era of changing transportation needs.””

Highway Boondoggles 2

5 of 12 were highway expansions. More is not better, and often more fails with larger gridlock.

Matt Steele: Use Cost:Benefit Analysis to Select Transit Routes→

streets.mn

“As the Twin Cities proceeds with plans to build over three billion dollars worth of rail extensions for the Blue and Green Lines, many transit advocates question if we’re missing an opportunity for transformative projects that lift up urban neighborhoods on their routes between suburban park & rides and the downtown core...

It comes down to this: Let’s discuss costs and benefits in parallel until shovels hit the ground, rather than committing to a “value” alignment and then being all ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ when the cost goes up 50% or more. For things like tunnels under parks and bridges over the Grimes Pond which are being planned precisely because these low-development corridors were supposedly going to make the chosen alignment more cost effective. If we’re going to build viaducts and tunnels, let’s at least do it in a way that brings stations to the doorsteps of tens of thousands more transit riders.”

Adam Frank: Disruptive Infrastructure→

NPR:

“The nation’s vast transportation network is a modern-day wonder built from highways and streets, off-ramps and interchanges, cars, trucks and buses. And the fossil fuel that powers it all represents another modern wonder — a complex network of linked drilling platforms, refineries, pipelines, rail lines and trucking operations.

The scale of it all is staggering. Try, for a moment, to think of all those thousands and thousands of miles of concrete, asphalt, steel piping and iron rebar. Now think about something even more staggering: In 1890 there were no gas stations — the very root of our modern transportation infrastructure. But by 1920, there were gas stations everywhere.

What does that tell you? It means all those highways, refineries and pipelines emerged out of nothing on a scale of decades. When you look at the history, it’s remarkable just how fast we built the fossil fuel-based transportation and energy infrastructure our civilization depends upon.

But what’s even more remarkable is that we have to do it again.”

First, we'll add new elements to our existing infrastructure. Next, we'll settle on one or two sustainable transportation options that scale (e.g., electric streetcars, ultra-lite rail). Then we'll slowly replace the old, less used transportation infrastructure (e.g., less roads, parking lots, gas stations).

Eric Jaffe: Tear Down the Expressway in Toronto→

CityLab:

“Writing at the blog Architect This City about the Gardiner debate, transport planner Darren Davis of Auckland, New Zealand, gives a simple four-part explanation for what happens to traffic when a major roadway gets removed or altered. Some people change their routes. Some shift their travel times to hit the road earlier or later. Some switch from cars onto public transit or another mode. And some—typically the case for non-work travel—just don’t make the trip at all.

At the end of his recent op-ed favoring a teardown, Globe and Mail architecture critic Alex Bozikovic asked: “But are we building a city? Or a highway?” Toronto won’t live or die based on the Gardiner decision, but it will be answering that critical question.”

One should tear it down for the opportunity for citizens to be close to the waterfront. 

Monica Millsap Rasmussen: Why not Transit?→

Streets.mn:

“At first glance, the question “What’s stopping others from using transit more regularly” seems to be an easy answer. Convenience. After all, a popular saying in the US used to be, “this is the best thing since sliced bread.” But is the answer more complicated than that?

Listening more deeply, and if one had the ability to converse with people who have made these statements, would we find that another theme is actually freedom to choose? After all, many people who cannot afford a car or are in a situation where they cannot obtain a driver’s license also face many of these obstacles, but due to their circumstances must face them on transit. Making mass transit more convenient would certainly improve the quality of life for users who need to take transit, but would the others take transit or still choose to drive? And would those who are currently without a car still choose to buy a car once they could afford one or obtain a license?”

Monica gets at another issue of regarding mass transit -- the need for high quality options that push out current users. In many cities mass transit is designed for those who can't afford a car. For mass transit to be more popular to the middle class and thus most politicians, it will require rail and bus use to be dominated by the non-poor. We now subsidize roads for the middle class, likely at a higher cost ($/mile) than rail, bus, or streetcar. Why? Because the preference for suburban (i.e., low-density village of our distant past) life-styles?

Public Transit Rankings→

Reuben Fischer-Baum, reporting for FiveThirtyEight:

“New York is the only U.S. system to register on the international level. Most of New York’s trips were on the MTA subway (62 percent), followed by MTA buses (21 percent), NJ Transit buses (4 percent) and LIRR commuter trains (3 percent).

New York, Washington, Boston and Philadelphia — the urban centers of the “Northeast Corridor” — all fall into the top 10 in trips per resident. They also fall into the top 10 of urban population. Do certain regions tend to support better public transit, or is this just a product of city size and density?

Among all 290 cities, there’s a clear relationship between trips per resident and both total population (the r-squared is 0.41) and population density (r-squared = 0.21). ”

Brent Moore

Size matters, ... Look at New York and D.C. Judge them by size, do you?”

How to Elevate the Twin Cities→

Jay Walljasper, writing for MinnPost:

“As to improving life for those who are struggling economically, Penalosa recommends: “There is nothing that government could do that would have a higher impact on middle-class families than to enable them to switch from two cars to one, and for poor families to switch from one to none.” In a region like Minneapolis-St. Paul, he says, two-car suburban families typically spend 27 percent of their income on transportation.”

Jeremiah Peterson

Yes, a city's strength flows from public transportation. But beware of the dark side. Sprawl, suburbia, lack of transportation options; the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did most cities in North America.

9 Reasons the U.S. Ended Up So Much More Car-Dependent Than Europe→

Ralph Buehler, reporting for The Atlantic Cities:

“Between the 1920s and 1960s, policies adapting cities to car travel in the United States served as a role model for much of Western Europe. But by the late 1960s, many European cities started refocusing their policies to curb car use by promoting walking, cycling, and public transportation. For the last two decades, in the face of car-dependence, suburban sprawl, and an increasingly unsustainable transportation system, U.S. planners have been looking to Western Europe.

The numbers show the need for change. In 2010, Americans drove for 85 percent of their daily trips, compared to car trip shares of 50 to 65 percent in Europe. Longer trip distances only partially explain the difference. Roughly 30 percent of daily trips are shorter than a mile on either side of the Atlantic. But of those under one-mile trips, Americans drove almost 70 percent of the time, while Europeans made 70 percent of their short trips by bicycle, foot, or public transportation.”

Nice summary of the likely causes of our auto dependence here in North America.

The Case Against Cars in 1 Utterly Entrancing GIF→

Derek Thompson, reporting for The Atlantic:

“We continue to lead advanced economies in per-capita carbon emissions, 28 percent of which come from transportation. But even if the crunchy granola argument isn’t good enough to make you see the benefits of public transit, consider that trains, trams, buses, and the like reduces traffic congestion, which is good for the life satisfaction of everybody behind the wheel, since science shows long commutes make us unhappy.”

Great Lakes shipping terminal for Bakken oil hits dead end→

John Upton, reporting for Grist: 

“The Great Lakes have been spared the ignominy of becoming a conveyor for crude oil fracked at North Dakota’s Bakken fields.

At least for now.

Plans to build a crude shipping terminal at Duluth, Minn., on the western shore of Lake Superior, have been shelved because of a lack of refining capacity on the East Coast. ”

It has to go somewhere. Where?