urbanSTL

A co-worker of mine today theorized that self-driving cars will return us more to a model we saw decades ago (he didn't say it quite like that). Basically, denser urban areas plus more people living significantly out who could then do work on their commutes. It's the in between—the suburbs—that might stand to lose the most.

I don't know if that's how it will play out, but it's an interesting thought.

Being freed from car ownership would be a nice break if the cost of owning a car could drop from ~$7k/yr/car to something under $1k. It'll be a lot easier to do in the city with more amenities and more people coming and going, than in the suburbs but it'll be interesting to see how both change.

I wonder, with driverless cars, road diets, and overall improved transit, would 500,000 still be the ideal population size for St. Louis City.

I wonder how/if the older levittown post-war suburbs will be transformed without the need to park a car. They usually sit on about a half acre of land and set back from the street to accommodate driveways. Will we see massive redevelopment of these areas?

One thing's for sure though, we have enough land now to reasonably accommodate the lifestyle preferences of our population. I'm sure GoogleCar can take a leisurely, scenic, 30 minute commute without more people needing to move to Wentzville. I really hope we can reverse sprawl and implement some smart growth. We absolutely don't need anymore highways.

I'd also love, with sprawl correction, to be no more than a 15 minute ride away from a clear night sky and the stars. Bring back cabins and eco-lodges. Turn Chesterfield into wine country.

Driverless cars is a big wild card in how planning could go. Actually if cars went that way we would likely need fewer lane miles of highways for the same traffic flow since it would increase the efficency due to eliminating traffic issues caused by driver functions.

One part that would be interesting is said cars could park in a central location and you could summon them when you go. This would eliminate the need for many parking lots. This could potentially develop more urban development by pushing parking lots out which affects not only the city but picture such development increasing in other areas as localized urban cores of towns.

There will still be traffic congestion, although there will be more ways to deal with it such as narrower lanes, closer car spacing, an possibly automatically reserved commute slots to spread out the congestion. But there may be a lot more folks trying to use roads, too. I don't think long commutes will ever be popular -- who wants to be cooped up in a box for 90 minutes twice a day no matter how luxurious.

Work from home will be an the bigger incentive to move to rural areas. Picture this -- if nobody owns their own car anymore, folks may turn their 3-car garages into a home office to work from home. but other amenities may rise in importance to home owners -- such as walkable community, bikeable community, proximity to urban area concert and sport venues, etc. Biking along roadways will go way up in popularity once all cars are required to be nearly bike-strike proof. I predict that feature will be required of all new cars within 5 years.

Yes, telecommuting is another thing which makes location based on where you work a moot point. This could fundamentally change the design of cities as a result and possibly in ways unimagined.

One aspect could be not just revitalizing an urban core in the city, but develop and grow similar ones in suburbs, exurbs and rural areas. Why not use aspects of city revitalization in other areas. Where I live in Washington, MO; it seems some of the development ideas of the city are being applied and thought of for the historic district in terms of improving walkability, infill development, and increasing residents in terms of townhomes and loft apartments. WIth these sorts of cars, it would be good if instead of parking lots next to buildings they can drop you off at the front of one, then go off to an off-site lot and then you can summon it when you need it again. This would also push storefronts up to the street.

The NHTSA just put out this report that is getting a lot of press. The report estimates that the cost of car crashes in the US is $871 BILLON with a B every year. That is a staggering number and shows why we have to invest in crashless cars. $871 Billion is enough to pay off the entire US National debt in 20.1 years, or buy 35 million people in the US a new car every year, or pay for the entire US elementary and secondary public education system including all teacher salaries every year.

Here is the original report:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812013.pdf

And here is a story about it in USA today this week:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... s/9715893/

Predication: driverless cars will take off just like 3D TVs.....

gary kreie wrote:The NHTSA just put out this report that is getting a lot of press. The report estimates that the cost of car crashes in the US is $871 BILLON with a B every year. That is a staggering number and shows why we have to invest in crashless cars. $871 Billion is enough to pay off the entire US National debt in 20.1 years, or buy 35 million people in the US a new car every year, or pay for the entire US elementary and secondary public education system including all teacher salaries every year.

Here is the original report:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812013.pdf

And here is a story about it in USA today this week:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... s/9715893/

Future headline: Autobody Lobby Sneaks Crashless Car Ban Into MO Leg Bill

Call me spoiled but i like being in control of the car I'm driving and i trust my driving.. My only concerns about self driving cars is safety ... How will these cars operate? By satellite computer etc. What if the car happens to malfunction does it automatically shut itself off ..

To me it's not about trust, it's that I love driving my audi S4, she is amazing! 333-hp, supercharged 3.0-liter V-6 all wheel drive!

I think you will still be able to drive yourself in the future. You just won't be allowed to hit another car, tree, person, or bicycle, and you won't be allowed to lose control of your car and kill yourself or your passengers. Short of that, if the car thinks it is safe, it could let you drive 120 mph and blow through empty intersections at will. The excitement level could increase, but not your danger level.

I think it has a shot at being a hit car with certain segments like the blind and 65+ folks.

I think a small autonomous car with a limited top speed could be a nice complement to existing transit options. It'd be particularly useful in a downtown environment to get from one place to another that's not directly on a bus or rail stop.

It'd be a good thing to welcome Google to test their service in downtown STL (regardless of whether they accept or not). It could be competition for a taxi service, true. So let it be run by the MTC. Also, the limited speed would limit the perceived threat to human taxi drivers; drivers are 'faster' and can serve a larger area. There's certainly little threat of a Google autonomous car running at a max speed of 25 MPH challenging a taxi driver for taking someone from the airport to a downtown hotel, for example.

-RBB

Mercedes hopes to beat Google to it. Clip from the Today show this morning.

http://www.today.com/video/today/55372906

Intersection of the future with self-driving cars. Those are some brave pedestrians.

http://vimeo.com/106226560

Clever editing.

Here's the intersection of the past.

That is a great traffic film from the past. I notice the horses never run into each other, probably because they developed advanced visual horse-to-horse communication long ago. With 802.11p based vehicle-to-vehicle communication, we truly are going back to the future.

By the way, in the intersection-of-the-future video, there are about 12 dead pedestrians just off camera.

gary kreie wrote:The company also mentions on-demand. So the cool thing would be for a vehicle a little faster than these to pick you up at your home and take you to a metro-link station where a fleet of similar vehicles would be waiting at your end station to take you to your final destination.

Why take the train at all?

I deleted the paragraph about using a system like this on Grand to take elderly and disabled from metro link to The Fox or Powell. You, however, should walk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk