Metronome

METRONOME MIROSLAV AZIS, CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR

SECTION 1:INTRODUCTION

Long a symbol of freedom and mobility, automobiles have promised their owners comfortable, reliable point-to-point transportation on-demand. Yet despite over 16 million hectares of paved land in the United States alone, the combined transportation infrastructure–roads, gas stations, and parking lots–constructed on the premise of the single-owner automobile remains taxed beyond capacity, limiting city growth with peak-time congestion and demand for more road infrastructure.

Today, per-capita automotive ownership is on the rise while public transit systems continue to lose funding, limiting sustainable urban growth. Centralized carsharing networks like Zipcar and Cambio present compelling social, financial, and environmental arguments for transitioning away from single-owner automobile use–lowering the number of automobiles in service, reducing overproduction of automobiles, and developing opportunities for manufacturer-driven performance incentives–but have yet failed to reach operational parity with ownership.

Emerging technologies in automated driving, as developed by manufacturers such as Volkswagen, General Motors, and Google, are being tailored towards the traditional market of single-owner automobiles–a model that will exacerbate unsustainable cycles of infrastructural development. If we allow

autonomous driving to progress under a paradigm of automobile ownership, autonomous vehicles will only exacerbate the effects of automobile use and ownership on infrastructure and society. However, enabled by automation and networked computing capabilities, there exists a parallel opportunity to change the current trajectory. By leveraging excess automobile capacity and developing next-generation transportation systems, logistic networks can be optimized with respect to time and capacity, promoting sustainable urban development, challenging the concepts of ownership and individualism, improving quality of urban life, and ultimately delivering on the automobile’s promise of freedom and mobility.

1.1PROBLEM STATEMENT

In 1919, Dwight Eisenhower, then a lieutenant-colonel in the U.S. Army, participated in the Transcontinental Military Convoy from Washington, D.C. to San Francisco, California, to assess the efficacy of the U.S. military logistics network. After 60 days, 230 unique road incidents, 9 disabled vehicles, and 21 injured service personnel, the convoy reached its destination. Along the way, the convoy and its weight broke 88 wooden bridges, and coped with unpaved roadway from Illinois through Nevada.

Eisenhower’s subsequent experience with the German autobahns during his service in World War II led him to champion the Federal Highway Act of 1956. The Interstate Highway System, he argued, would encourage economic growth and interstate trade, would unify the nation from coast to coast, and would prove instrumental to military operations during the Cold War. Ultimately, the Interstate Highway System changed the face of American society.

1.2PROBLEM INDICATORS

The prevalence of urban planning favoring automobile travel over walkability.

In 1966, the National Film Board of Canada released a short film entitled What on Earth!, a humorous mockumentary critiquing car culture from the point of view of space aliens who mistake automobiles to be Earth’s dominant species, and humans as parasites infesting them. Yet observing the patterns of post-war urban development in the United States, one could not fault the space aliens from reaching such a conclusion.

Post-war urban renewal efforts originating from planners such as Robert Moses sought to expedite the flow of traffic to and from the urban core and relocate residents to suburbs or housing projects, degrading city tax bases. Once pedestrian in scale, buildings in urban centers morphed quickly into the postmodern behemoths of the ‘60s and ‘70s, more suited to viewing at freeway speed from a distance than from the sidewalk. In Boston, Massachussetts, urban renewal efforts led to the seizure and demolition of almost one-third of the city, including the historically significant West End district. Today, U.S. road infrastructure has paved over 16 million hectares of land–an area roughly the size of Tunisia.

Automobile-dependent communities inaccessible by public transit corridors.

Faster, more comfortable travel meant a tolerance for commuting, and suburbs and exurbs–once considered undesirable and marginalized–saw an influx of affluent families no longer satisfied with the communitarian living in the urban core. Driven by the lower cost of roads in exurban areas, new forms of automobile-dependent low-density development, no longer constrained by streetcar and rail lines, filled in once-inaccessible space between transit corridors.

The proliferation of roads to accomodate the pace of new development, has a snowballing effect: not unlike the transit-oriented growth patterns the increase of roadway capacity subsequently creates incentives for new development to occur in the direction of travel.

An increase in developed land area, but a drop in population density.

Despite recent US Census data touting the growth of Urban America and the reversal of suburbanization, urban density in this decade remains a startling 27% lower than 1950s figures. While metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) have grown steadily in both population and land area, historic core municipalities have seen a steady loss in population, while suburban and exurban areas continue to expand–between 1950 and 2010, urban land area grew by 208%, but the urban population grew just 130%. A 2006 paper by environmental planning and urban scholar Julian D. Marshall suggested that on average, incoming migrants into urban areas occupy about twice the land of existing residents per capita.

ON URBAN PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE

1984 1989 1994

1999 2004 2009

25 YEARS OF GROWTH IN LAS VEGAS.NASA Earth Observatory.

Heavy traffic.

As new development proliferates along new road corridors, automobile use increases as people and goods access them. Larger roads are a temporary solution at best–ultimately, they exacerbate the problem of development and encourage movement towards the suburbs and exurbs.

A rise in commuting times and a loss of productivity.

Telecommuting never permeated the American workplace with the volume and intensity that many labor analysts had predicted. Instead, employees continue to commute from suburbs and exurbs increasingly distant from metropolitan cores, increasing the amount of time they spend on the road. The average American commutes 25.4 minutes to work each day, according to the US Census Bureau. A disproportionate percentage of commutes longer than 60 minutes involve public transit–in part because of the longer times associated with mass transit modes.

In 2010, the US Census Bureau reported that an estimated 86.3 percent of the workforce commuted to work by car, truck, or van. Of these commuters, 88.8 percent drove alone. If the average one-way commute time is 25.4 minutes, then approximately 80 percent of the U.S. workforce loses 50 minutes of potential productivity every workday by focusing on driving.

The Urban Mobility Report of 2009 estimated that the cost of traffic congestion on productivity and fuel amounted to $87.2 billion, or $750 per traveler. The most congested metropolital statistical area in the United States was Los Angeles. On average, commuters in Los Angeles spent 70 hours in traffic every year.

ON THE TRAVEL EXPERIENCE

AVERAGE COMMUTE TIME TO WORK IN MINUTES: LOS ANGELES.WNYC.org infographic

10 15 20 25 30 35 45 60

Populations susceptible to economic instability.

While suburbanization continues to proliferate, the nature of its growth has undergone significant changes since the “white flight” patterns seen in the latter half of the 20th century. A 2009 paper by the Brookings Institution, “The Suburbanization of Poverty: Trends in Metropolitan America, 2000 to 2008,” revealed that since 2000, poverty has surged most sharply in suburban bedroom communities, in part due to fallout from the 2008 financial crisis on once-affluent families, but also in part due to low-income, low-debt families finding affordable housing in once-affluent areas.

According to the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) think tank’s H&T Affordability Index, living in transportation-poor suburban areas means that transportation alone can amount to 15-30% of household income. For example, while the average resident of the urban Shadyside neighborhood of Pittsburgh loses 27% of their income on housing, transportation costs only amount to 15%; in comparison, housing in the nearby bedroom community of Tarentum, PA will cost just 17% of average income, but transportation costs will amount to 29%. Furthermore, city dwellers score higher numbers on the Transportation Connectivity Index, and are less susceptible to fluctuations in fuel costs that have the ability to cripple suburban households.

ON ECONOMIC HEALTH

Design for planned obsolescence.

The automobile’s status as a consumer product, purchased, owned, and operated by the same user, provides incentives for manufacturer to build products with shorter lifespans. This shortens the purchasing cycle and increases revenue for the manufacturer.

Vance Packard described the practice in The Waste Makers as early as 1960 to be “the systematic attempt of business to make us wasteful, debt-ridden, permanently discontented individuals.” Manufacturers stimulate artificial demand by encouraging customers to replace products before their use value has been depleted (through systemic change or outmoded style). This practice is particularly prevalent in consumer-grade goods, especially within the automotive industry.

ON BUSINESS STRATEGY AND TRANSPORTATION DESIGN

AVERAGE HOUSING COST ASPERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE INCOME

Blue: >30%Yellow: <30%

AVERAGE TRANSPORTATION COST ASPERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE INCOME

Blue: >15%Yellow: <15%

1.3FACTORING IN AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES

Autonomous vehicles may seem like a radical concept, but they are an imminent reality. Today, major auto manufacturers, including Nissan, Toyota, Audi, have joined the ranks of tech companies (e.g. Google), and academic institutions (e.g. University of Oxford, Carnegie Mellon, MIT) developing self-driving automotive technology. Many automotive are beginning to implement features already within their automobiles that indicate a shift towards autonomy (e.g. lane assist, automated parallel parking) and are planning on implementing features that border on full autonomy in the near future (e.g. traffic assist).

In 2011, Google’s driverless car won street legal status in Nevada, Florida, and California.

Perhaps the most concrete evidence supporting the shift towards shared autonomous technology is the Masdar City Personal Rapid Transit (PRT). In 2013, Oxford University released an automated vehicle system capable of autonomous movement on familiar routes, at a cost of only £5000.

Autonomous vehicles could actually jeopardize efforts to curb sprawl.

Perhaps the most disturbing critique leveled against automated car development is the effect of added opportunity value on commute tolerance. In an article for Quartz Magazine entitled Driverless cars will make your city vast and boring Arielle Duhaime-Ross explains, “when driverless cars make rush hour a thing of the past, help guarantee that you arrive at work on time, and free up your hands and focus to work on the road, will it matter if you live miles away from your workplace? Probably not.” If single-owner automobiles today were converted to autonomous cars, urbanization might proliferate along highway corridors at an unprecedented rate, and automobile size would likely increase as transit time–and thus demand for increasingly comfortable vehicles–also increases. The resultant urban landscape will not be built at human scale; rather, it is built at the scale of the car.

Autonomous vehicles may reduce the appeal of mass transit with the ability to bypass transit networks.

Single-owner automobiles already discourage mass transit use due to their ability to bypass transit networks altogether. If autonomous vehicles offer point-to-point transportation on demand in the same manner as existing vehicles, the increase in opportunity value of automotive travel may actually increase the use of single-owner automobiles and decrease the use of mass transit, leading to an urban planning trend driven by the creation of flowing traffic arteries.

Autonomous vehicles may reduce the appeal of alternative forms of transportation (e.g. walking and biking).

For short trips that could otherwise be achieved using alternative transportation methods, access to autonomous vehicles could reduce the appeal of walking and biking. This is especially true those who do not currently own automobiles, ultimately discouraging planners from planning walkable neighborhoods altogether.

DISADVANTAGES

Autonomous vehicles could increase the number of drivers on the road.

In 2012, Google placed a legally blind man behind the wheel of an automated test vehicle. “Where this would change my life,” Mahan explains, “is to give me the independence and flexibility to go the places I both want to go and need to go, when I need to do those things.” While for a large population (e.g. people living with disabilites), automated vehicles would be the key to mobility, the overall impact of increased accessibility is, ultimately, more use. If children under driving age are able to access automobiles, the number of automobile trips taken could skyrocket. If automated vehicles allow the intoxicated to drive without fear of retribution, cities would experience more traffic into the city from the exurbs, leading to a need for more parking spaces in the evening.

Autonomous vehicles could increase the number of automobiles purchased.

Intuitively, if the functional value of a product increases, demand will also increase. If autonomous vehicles remain consumer goods, they will be as susceptible to planned obsolescence business models as existing automobiles, exacerbating manufacturing waste and encouraging the proliferation of automotive infrastructure.

Autonomous vehicles will make driving safer, more reliable, and more environmentally friendly per mile.

Automated driving eliminates many of the human factors that contribute to inefficiency. A reduced need for safety gaps between cars could lead to increased roadway capacity, higher driving speeds, the reduction of traffic congestion, and the ability to “platoon”–harnessing other cars’ slipstreams to reduce fuel use. Improvements in driving safety could lead to lighter vehicles no longer weighed down by collision safety requirements. Improvements in driving safety will make biking and walking in urban areas safer and more desirable.

Autonomous vehicles can make society more productive.

In 2010, the US Census Bureau reported that an estimated 86.3 percent of the workforce commuted to work by car, truck, or van. Of these commuters, 88.8 percent drove alone. If the average one-way commute time is 25 minutes, then approximately 80 percent of the U.S. workforce loses 50 minutes of potential productivity every workday by focusing on driving. The potential impact of autonomous vehicles on the passenger experience is formidable–in particular, the reclamation of opportunity value in autonomous vehicles will either lead to increased productive output or leisure time for commuters.

Autonomous vehicles will alter the livability of the urban core, with the potential to decrease per-capita environmental footprint.

Autonomous vehicles have the potential to decouple buildings and parking, freeing up valuable land in city centers for developmental infill. Reclaiming parking spaces in urban centers has major implications for urban walkability, leading to an improved quality of life. Cities will become more appealing, leading to a potential migration back into the urban core, where per capita gasoline, electricity, and water use are significantly lower.

ADVANTAGES

if we allow autonomous driving to progress under a paradigm of automobile ownership, autonomous vehicles will only exacerbate the effects of automobile use and ownership on infrastructure and society.

the hypothesis:

1.4CONSIDERATIONS + CONSTRAINTSFOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DESIGN

Duhaime-Ross offers a disturbing view of the effects of automated vehicles on driving culture. If automated vehicles are indeed the future (and until now there is every indication that they are) then the single-owner vehicle paradigm will jeopardize major efforts to curb sprawl, encourage automobile ownership, and reduce the appeal and use of alternative transportation. However, her critique is based on unambitious projections that retain accepted service models and fail to account for opportunities for new service models beyond single-owner automobile use. This project aims to explore alternative models for transportation beyond individual ownership and use.

Operations

The ability for cars to be delivered on demand could mean, as the KMPG puts it, “a significant redefinition of vehicle ownership.” Companies like Zipcar and Cambio that offer functional ownership of vehicles through large, fleet-based car sharing networks, create social, financial, and environmental incentives for users and manufacturers alike to transition from the current single-owner paradigm for automobile ownership. Car sharing services like these reduce the number of vehicles on the road, and lowers the demand for automobile production. Shared car networks such as these also provide opportunities for implementing manufacturer-driven performance incentives. The greatest obstacle, however, is the tendency to believe that there is an inherent difference between private and public transportation–a testament to a much greater bias toward ownership (ironically, a concept reinforced by suburbanization via the enclosure of public goods within the private home).

It is the endeavor of this project to propose an alternative to single-owner automated vehicles in hopes of transitioning away from the traditional values of physical ownership, towards a more sustainable model of functional ownership. Robert Brugemann of Bloomberg writes, “The driverless car might well substantially alter all the equations: the division between public and private, the collective and individual. Transportation policy has never been as clear as the polemics on the subject would suggest. The taxi, for example, has long shared characteristics of each.”

In a material ownership paradigm the cost of mobility is equal to the cost of a vehicle (the transportation product); in a functional ownership model, the cost of mobility is equal to the cost of travel–by automobile, train, etc. (the service of transportation). Users could pay only for the functionality they receive through the service, passing the high cost of the vehicles, maintenance and infrastructure onto the service provider. Within this system, the service provider seeks profitability through their own efficiencies rather than through increases in production–a concept known as performance contracting.

Such a model would do a far better job of optimizing for logistic efficiency.Optimize for logistic efficiency. Even when vehicle usage is at its peak—near 5:00 p.m. in the U.S.—fewer than 12 percent of all personal vehicles are on the road, which means, of course, that 88 percent are not in use. (Not all of those vehicles would be available for sharing at any given time; the composition of the 12 percent changes as trips begin and end, and vehicles would need time to travel from the end of one trip to the beginning of the next.) Self-driving vehicles could be used more efficiently throughout the day instead of being parked most of the day and night. This would require new models for vehicle insurance and maintenance but would also provide multiple new business opportunities.

Business strategy + transportation design

One of the largest issues facing the automotive industry and its ability to reduce its overall footprint is the long-standing use of planned obsolescence strategies to encourage sales to individual owners. An alternative system must provide incentives to move product strategies away from planned obsolescence and towards designing systems for longevity and adaptability.

However, the goal of this project is not only to reduce the material intensity per unit service (MIPS) of automotive transportation, but also to reduce demand for automotive transportation altogether. The system must also decrease demand for single-owner vehicles, not only because vehicles last longer, but because the demand for ownership decreases along with the availability of alternative product systems.

Lastly, any proposed product system must achieve a per-mile cost of travel for passengers below the cost of equivalent single-owner automobile use.

The travel experience

The purpose of rethinking the automobile is, ultimately, to reframing of our understanding of transportation. The geographically networked structure of mass transit contributes to an understanding of infrastructure significantly

OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEW SERVICE DEVELOPMENTS

OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEW SERVICE DEVELOPMENTS (CONT’D)

different from that of the automotive instrastructure, which affords fine-grained, point-to-point transportation as opposed to hub-based networks. The system should encourage users to think of urban transportation as a network to harness, not as an obstactle to cross.

At the moment, vehicles with autonomous capabilities still require human input and attention. Will Knight of the MIT Technology Review writes, “When implemented correctly, automation quickly feels like just a natural part of driving. In fact, it’s easy to forget that it has been creeping into cars ever since the hand crank was replaced by the automatic starter in 1911.” Indeed, drivers have been slowly relinquishing control of their vehicles. With features such as lane assist and parallel parking assist, automobiles have already begun to straddle the line between manual driving and full automation. To complete the transition, the traditionally “driving experience” should eventually be detached from the automobile. This will allow autonomous vehicles to renounce the driver centered cockpit design paradigm for a fully passenger oriented model.

With this physical change comes a shift in the affordances of the service. Once the form of the car has been adapted for transit, the service can begin to facilitate carpooling or ride sharing within the automotive portion of the service. Once passengers have accepted the idea of the automobile as a shared space for multiple users, the automobile can be percieved as a component to the transit network both in functionality and sociality.

Urban planning + infrastructure

Assuming that autonomous driving technologies keep their current trajectory (i.e. reliant primarily on vehicle-mounted sensors and satellite positioning over infrastructural guides), automobile-dependent suburban development will not be curbed by single-owner automated vehicles, as the cost of new roads will remain relatively constant. If the primary driver of sprawl and suburban development is the automobile and the unrestrained mobillity it affords, any system that seeks to combat sprawl must also seek to restrict, in some manner, the range of the automobile in the system. Strategies for

restricting movement could be geographical or financial, e.g. higher tariffs for longer distances, etc.

The system must also reduce demand for parking in service areas. Decoupling parking from buildings could play a major role in changing the landscape of the urban core, opening up valuable downtown areas for developmental infill. Any successful transportation system should, ultimately, motivate migration to the urban core from suburban neighborhoods, perhaps by increasing the appeal of urban living.

Policy + legal

The greatest barrier to the successful implementation of automated driving is not technological or even infrastructural, but legal. Landmark legislation championed by Google made automated vehicles street-legal in Nevada, Florida, and California; however, getting them on the road is only half of the battle. In order for autonomous vehicles to be successful, they must the overcome sizable liability issues. Autonomous cars should be recognized as fully rational machines that are incapable of violating traffic laws, and therefore incapable of assuming liability–this is important because it will not only keep autonomous car services safe from liability, but will also make driving non-autonomous cars an unnecessary risk. This will help drive a shift to autonomy.

Once autonomous cars are deemed to be competent and rational drivers, policymakers should legalize operation of an autonomous vehicle for non-licensed drivers–this step would make autonomous transit accessible to everyone and aid the development of autonomous cars as a transit network.

OPERATIONAL • Connect suburban neighborhoods with mass transit infrastructure

• Provide mobility services without the use of single-owner vehicles

• Optimize for logistic efficiency• Reduce energy consumption

resultant from transportation

• Reduce automobile-related accident rates

• Reduce per-passenger miles driven• Reduce travel times over traditional

mass transit use

• Lightweighting future automotive development

• Encourage electric car development

DESIGN CRITERIA

Must Should Could

URBAN PLANNING +INFRASTRUCTURE

• Slow growth of suburban-density development

• Reduce demand for parking in service areas

• Motivate the development of walkable neighborhoods

• Motivate migration towards urban core

• Release space dedicated for road infrastructure from automobile servitude

• Motivate infill development in urban areas once dedicated to automotive infrastructure

TRAVEL EXPERIENCE • Develop an understanding of urban infrastructure as a network

• Motivate the use of mass transit networks over automobile use

• Reclaim lost opportunity value for current automobile commuters.

• Motivate alternative transportation, e.g. walking and biking in urban neighborhoods

• Create affordances for multi-user services within the system

• Develop an understanding of functional ownership vs. legal ownership

BUSINESS STRATEGY +TRANSPORTATION DESIGN

• Incentivize partnerships between auto manufacturers and tech companies to develop better integrated products

• Incentivize performance contracting and a reversal of planned obsolescence

• Result in mergers between auto manufacturers and tech companies

• Foster recycling standards for automotive component similar to the WEEE Directive

• Discourage the development of single-owner automated vehicles

• Reduce the number of single-owner vehicles purchased

• Reduce the financial cost of automotive transportation

POLICY + LEGAL • Influence zoning practices in metropolitan areas and encourage transect-based planning

• Act under a strict, legal framework governing rational behavior

• Assume right-of-way over non-autonomous vehicles

Kai (24)Designer

Sonia (25)Grad Student

URBAN CORE URBAN FRINGEDense neighborhoods with good

pedestrian access and very good mass transit connectivity.

Medium-high density neighborhoods with very good pedestrian access and

fair mass transit connectivity.

New Urbanites

For the first time in history, Urban America is growing faster than Exurban America, a trend attributed to many factors from rising energy costs, to economic stagnation, to an increasing preference for walkable cities. A rising class of younger, more affluent, yet migratory urbanites–a millenial generation of recent college graduates entering new employment, employees temporarily relocated to a new city, but also socially-progressive city dwellers looking for opportunities to reduce expeditures and lower their environmental footprint by foregoing automobile ownership in favor of mass transit, would benefit from alternative, shared forms of automotive transportation.

USER TRANSECT

RURALLow density, neighborhoods with poor

pedestrian access and poor mass transit connectivity.

David (5)ES Student

Juan (42)Retail manager

Maria (37)Secretary

Carla (7)ES Student

Tom (13)MS Student

John (45)Attorney

Christina (47)Stay-at-home

Morgan (16)HS Student

SUBURBS EXURBSMedium-low density neighborhoods

with fair pedestrian access and fair to poor mass transit connectivity.

Low density, neighborhoods with poor pedestrian access and poor mass

transit connectivity.

The New Suburbanites

The confluence of a modest, yet notable rise in income within a growing immigrant population, combined with an aging population across every socioeconomic sector, has led to a new suburban condition far more heterogenous than preconcieved notions of suburbia might suggest. “With respect to transportation, the suburbs of the past are not well suited for the suburbanites of the present,” writes US Census demographer Bill Frey, explaining that the incoming suburban demographic, comprised of first- and second-generation immgrants, are more affluent than their predecessors but often cannot support a multi-car household, if at all.

The Exurbanites

In more traditional, car-centric suburban and exurban households, many families rely on multi car lifestyles to maintain mobility. With rising energy costs and the financial burdens of car ownership, this lifestyle is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. Commuters are increasingly favoring public transportation, but due to the sparseness of transit hubs in the suburban peripheries, many still own multiple cars to gain access to these systems, or to bypass them altogether.

PRECEDENCE FOR SHARED USE

1. Zipcar

With over 777,000 members (accounting for nearly half of all global carshare members) and nearly 10,000 vehicles on three continents, Zipcar is perhaps the most visible membership-based carsharing service in the world. Zipcar’s success rests on an understanding of their target demographic’s mobility and lifestyle demands (early-adopter college students and recent graduates), a simple user experience, and a well-branded product. Users access and unlock Zipcars using an RFID access card that scans against the car windshield. Users can reserve Zipcars online or by phone, either on-demand or up to a year in advance. Cars are stored in designated parking spots, either on-street or in parking garages, within walking distance of college campuses or other significant pockets of non-automobile owners.

While the implementation of automated vehicles using a Zipcar business model (through a vehicle “delivery” program) would indeed reduce per capita automobile ownership, automotive use would likely not decline and may even increase as vehicles travel longer distances without passengers to meet requests. Furthermore, fail to reduce the automobile’s transit bypass effect and would encourage door-to-door service.

2. Ruftaxi

The Ruftaxi is an on-demand ride service operating in the suburbs and bedroom communities surrounding German metropolises, designed to supplement transit lines during off-peak hours, or to connect areas where smaller vehicles are more cost-effective than buses or trams. A traveling party can call between 15-30 minutes ahead of their arrival at a transit station; upon arrival, a Ruftaxi will meet the train, collect the traveling party, and bring them to a transit stop near their destination.

While a separate transit operation on paper, the Ruftaxi system in its current incarnation, the Ruftaxi effectively acts as a part of the city’s transit network, and in some cities, is part of the regional tariff system.

3. Masdar City PRT

Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) is an “automated, demand-responsive, direct origin-to-destination transit service based on a fleet of small vehicles” (Raney and Young). A rail and carrier system utilizing segregated guideways with direct, on-demand, point-to-point service in 2-5 person vehicles, the system is a direct alternative to the automobile, offering the same privacy, convenience, and unhindered mobility, with few of the drawbacks. While operations differ across PRT offerings, the overarching experience journey is consistent: passengers enter a PRT station on a network that distributes stations regularly, similarly to cab ranks or bus stops, in a non-linear network of loops. Passengers enter a waiting vehicle, or request a vehicle—often, systems will adjust appropriate vehicle distributions based on user demand to minimize wait times. Upon entry, passengers select a destination station, relaying their request to a central, computerized control system that plots the fastest route to their destination.

Best suited as a neighborhood feeder system into heavy transit lines, as transportation around office campuses, or in mid-sized cities with medium- to high-density development, PRT’s high capital cost and need for specialized guideways has rendered it all but unviable in most cities. Nevertheless, PRT offers valuable insight into what the automated transit experience could be.

4. GM OnStar + RelayRides

A subsidiary of General Motors, OnStar is a subscription-based service providing, security, phone integration, navigation, remote diagnostics, automatic crash response, stolen vehicle assistance, and a number of other features. Available as both an OEM product in GM-manufactured cars and an aftermarket product in other makes,

The unexpected partnership between OnStar (a subsidary of General Motors) and RelayRides (a peer-to-peer carsharing marketplace) may be a signal that automobile manufacturers are factoring shared use into at least certain components of automotive design.

1 2

43

port authoritymetronome.

SECTION 2:PROCESS


During the early stages of this project, we developed a make tool to help get a sense of the average person’s transportation habits and ideals. To do this we used a map of the city and asked participants to place markers on the different places they frequented over the course of the past few weeks. This allowed us to get a sense of the user’s geographical footprint. Next, the participants were asked to show the means of transportation they typically employ for each trip using cards provided depicting different modes of transportation. This showed us what transportation each participant had access to and provided context for their geographical footprint. The last step of the make tool was to ask each participant to show and explain their ideal means of transit specific to reaching each of the locations that they detailed earlier. This gave us a sense of the functionality desired from transportation across a wide range of possible journeys and tasks.

Our research confirmed our initial hypothesis that those who do not own their own vehicle and rely on public transportation have a very constrained geographical footprint. For the most part they tend to be constrained to a relatively small radius around their home. These people sometimes venture further into the city center, where public transportation networks are more dense, but rarely venture far in the opposite direction.

MAKE TOOL + INSIGHTS

2.1THE MAKE TOOL

For participants with vehicles, the heart of their geographic footprint tended to be larger and they had more outlier locations that they frequented. These outliers, unlike with non vehicle owners, were not biased towards the city center but dispersed more evenly in all directions. We also discovered that, once vehicle ownership was removed from the equation, people took a more pragmatic approach to selecting an ideal means of transportation.


metronomePort Authority of Allegheny County

MAKE TOOL + INSIGHTS

2.2IDEATION

P

Release

Pickup

P

Release

Pickup

P

Release

Pickup

Releases car from service and completes transaction.

Commands vehicle to wait in place.

Unlock

Calls a car to your location for pick up.

Commands vehicle to park itself nearby.

Lock

P

Release

Pickup

P

Release

Pickup

P

Release

Pickup


The consumer product ecology of excluded single-owner goods has given rise to an unsustainable culture of material individualism; however, the availability of excess product capacity presents untapped opportunities for cultivating sharing ecologies.

Driven by a rise of consumer goods developed for and marketed toward single-owner use, unprecedented human population growth, and emerging middle-class consumer markets such as China and India, the world is witnessing an explosion in per-capita material and energy intensity in direct violation of earth’s carrying capacity. If the entire human population reached the material and energy intensity of the average American, we would require 4.1 Earths to sustain our quality of life.

Yet our built environment has been designed with a surplus of functionality–the average automobile is in use for just 540 hours per year, and the average automobile trip contains just 1.2 passengers. By developing practical solutions that decrease the opportunity cost of de-exclusion and improving the rhetoric of sharing in public discourse, we can leverage excess product capacity to maintain high living standards while fostering a more communitarian society and drastically reducing our strain on earth’s available material and energy stores.

2.3THE RIDESHARE NETWORK

Our first iteration involved using single-owner automobiles as multi-user shared spaces in a rideshare network. Inspired by the practice of “bodysnatching” in and around the Washington DC Beltway, we developed a proposal for a transit system using peer-to-peer use, single-owner automated vehicles that allowed car owners on trips to optimize their car’s use by picking up “riders” along or near their route.

The challenge with this design was to develop trust systems that afforded users a pleasurable automobile sharing experience. Physical signifiers (“the flag”) were used to indicate a rider’s trustworthiness, and security systems including fingerprint scanners on car doors communicated users’ identities throughout the ridesharing process. This iteration helped guide the design of a shared use system.


PROPOSAL: RIDESHARE NETWORK

o

I need a lift to the next town over, as soon as possible!

$$

orideshare network

The FlagThe Flag consists of a twist handle which, when activated, connects via bluetooth with the rider’s smartphone, which relays information to the ON network server. Entering destination information is optional. Drivers with the ON bird driving in the direction of the rider are notified of the rider’s presence by phone. When the embedded fingerprint scanner detects a user with a sufficient rating, the tamper-proof handheld device flashes a unique light pattern, which can be used to signal to passing drivers that the rider is a trusted member of the ON rideshare network in good standing. Breaking the Flag at any point alarms the ON system of a potential problem.

oo

The BirdThe bird consists of a fingerprint scanner connected directly to the 12V cigarette lighter in the car. Connected by bluetooth to the driver’s smartphone, the bird captures rider’s information using a fingerprint scan, and initiates a financial transaction based on mileage driven. All miles with a certain individual are logged, allowing the network to keep tabs on users and polices the system.

Accounts and rating systemThe ON network is designed to be used not only by altruistic drivers helping riders, but also of opportunistic drivers willing to pick up riders for compensation. However, any transaction in which strangers come into such close proximity with one another makes trust a primary concern. ON’s major innovation is the rating system, in which by default, riders are given the highest rating by drivers, and drivers are given the highest rating by riders. If a problem does arise, riders and drivers are able to assign their counterpart a lower rating. The rating system directly affects the color of the flag and drivers are able to make a more informed decision regarding riders.

Accounts and rating systemThe ON network is designed to be used not only by altruistic drivers helping riders, but also of opportunistic drivers willing to pick up riders for compensation. However, any transaction in which strangers come into such close proximity with one another makes trust a primary concern. ON’s major innovation is the rating system, in which by default, riders are given the highest rating by drivers, and drivers are given the highest rating by riders. If a problem does arise, riders and drivers are able to assign their counterpart a lower rating. The rating system directly affects the color of the flag and drivers are able to make a more informed decision regarding riders.

Bank / credit card dataLinked to ON account. Rider’s account begins to send payments to driver’s account upon fingerprint confirmation.

Inside the carDrivers are notified of rider requests using visual cues, but also by phone via the Bird, operating not unlike a dispatch taxi. Drivers are suggested to respond to rider requests conveniently along their route. Once riders are picked up, no money exchanges hands directly–instead, the rider’s fingerprint is the only necessary authorization to begin payment, freeing drivers and riders alike from the otherwise obligatory social incentive system.

Bank / credit card dataLinked to ON account. Rider’s account begins to send payments to driver’s account upon fingerprint confirmation.

SECTION 4:THE PROPOSAL


design for risk 2013.miroslav azis | christopher taylor


3.1METRONOME

Kevin Lynch was not exactly an opponent to the automobile, but he recognized the need for multimodal transportation early on. “I would press hard for a diversity of routes, vehicles, and styles of movement,” he wrote, continuing: “New modes of travel could be developed, for example an economical transit system for the lowdensity suburbs (where a person without a car is now immobilized), or a safe, easily controlled vehicle (locatable on cali by radio) in which children might roam with the freedom they once had in rural areas or small towns. Innovations in the means of travel might well be a public planning function.”

The new modes of travel envisioned by Lynch may come in an unexpected form. Autonomous vehicles may seem like a radical concept, but they are an imminent reality. Today, major auto manufacturers, including Nissan, Toyota, Audi, have joined the ranks of tech companies (e.g. Google), and academic institutions (e.g. University of Oxford, Carnegie Mellon, MIT) developing self-driving automotive technology. Many automotive are beginning to implement features already within their automobiles that indicate a shift towards autonomy (e.g. lane assist, automated parallel parking) and are planning on implementing features that border on full autonomy in the near future (e.g. traffic assist).

It is not the automated vehicle alone, however, that creates innovation; rather, the way automation affords new forms of shareability. Perhaps the most concrete evidence supporting the shift towards automation is the Masdar City Personal Rapid Transit (PRT). The PRT is a transit system composed of autonomous vehicles implemented on their own network of restricted-access roads, and has been operating successfully since 2011. In 2013, Oxford University released an automated vehicle system capable of autonomous movement on familiar routes, at a cost of only £5000. Autonomous driving technology will happen with or without further intervention by new parties. The challenge, however, will be to leverage autonomous technology correctly.



Who is it for?

What does it do?What is it for?

Develop understanding of thecity as network of infrastructure

Reducing incentives for automobile ownership; environmental footprint

Convenient, point-to-point transportation network

Affordable intermodal urban transportation

Flowing, continuous customer journey across transport modes

Reconnect suburban neighborhoods with metropolitan centers

Residents of mid-to-large metropolitan areas with sprawling development patterns traveling within metropolitan boundaries.


metronome provides seamless, point-to-point transportation services to residents in and around the city, connecting people with their destinations no matter where they’re going.

Multi-car families in medium-density suburban bedroom communities

Affluent, progressive urbanites in migratory, transitional lifestyles

Optimizing transportation networks for efficiency

Reducing incentives for automobile ownership

Connection with intermodal transportation, on-demand

Increase opportunity value for automobile commuters

Flowing, continuous customer journey across transport modes

Reconnect suburban neighborhoods with metropolitan centers

“New suburbanites” with lower disposable income

port authoritycars.

Who is it for?

What does it do?What is it for?

metronome cars connect people living away from transit corridors to the networks that service them, reconnecting neighborhoods with metropolitan centers.



P

Release

Pickup

Metronome smartphone app• Journey planning• Hailing tools• Route guidance• Communication with server

MetroKey• Transfer wayfinding• Hailing tools• Car operations• Communication with phone

Metronome server• Coordination of mass transit

and cars based on demand• Journey planning optimization• Communication with city traffic

network

Metronome mass transit• Hub-to-hub transportation along

heavy transit corridors

Metronome cars• Hub-to-point transportation

point-to-hub transportation beyond transit corridors

• Connection to mass transit

3.2METRONOME COMPONENTS



Setup

Users sign up for Metronome online or at their local transit authority office. Initially, users will be required to have a valid driver’s license to sign up for the service; however, once legislation regarding autonomous vehicles matures and licenses are no longer required to operate autonomous vehicles, the service will be available to everyone (including non-licenced users) above the age of 18, and under the age of 18 with parental consent. Once each user has been approved, they will receive their personal MetroKey in the mail. Each MetroKey is connected to a specific account and serves as a security measure to help eliminate the possibility of fraud. The user then downloads the Metronome App and pairs their smartphone to the MetroKey via bluetooth.

Hailing Metronome cars

To hail a car, users press the call button on the MetroKey. If the user is in a dense city center, the car will go to the nearest pick-up hub. The location of the nearest pick-up hub will automatically open on the user’s Metronome App. These curbside pick-up hubs will largely be integrated with existing transit hubs (e.g. bus stops, train stations). If the user is in a suburban or exurban transect further from the city center where curb space is more readily available and public transit networks thinly dispersed, the car will pick up the user at their precise location.

USING METRONOME

the metronome app is the information center of the metronome system, providing journey planning tools, hailing tools, and step-by-step route guidance for metronome passengers.

Request a car Plan a trip Step-by-step guidance Map viewSync with MetroKey



Operating Metronome cars using the MetroKey

The MetroKey will vibrate and flash every 2 minutes to let the user know that they still have a car in service. If the user is making a stop and has items in the car, they can command the car to park itself using the MetroKey. The MetroKey will vibrate and flash every 5 minutes until the user calls or releases the car using the MetroKey. In situations when the user is loading or unloading the vehicle, users can command it to wait using the MetroKey. The car will stay stationary for as long as the user needs. Once the user has left the car with all their belongings, they can then release the car from service.

Bypassing public transit

If the user needs to bypass public transit integration for any reason (e.g. hauling large items, emergency) they can do so by cancelling transit integration on their smartphone or directly on the dash of the vehicle. This will result in a doubled fair. Once the user is ready to depart, they can command the car to go and begin their journey.

Riding Metronome cars

Upon arrival of a Metronome car, the user boards the vehicle and inputs their final destination using their smartphone or directly on the dash of the vehicle; Metronome calculates their optimal route. For short trips in which the journey can be made using only the car, the service offers one-step door-to-door service. For longer trips and trips in denser parts of the city, Metronome integrates public transportation into the route. The route is then displayed for the user on their smartphone.

The user is then taken to the next leg of their trip. The user is dropped off at the appropriate transit hub. The user exits the car and then releases it from service using their MetroKey. If the user forgets to release their vehicle, it will be released automatically once they are scanned into their next mode of transportation.

USING METRONOME (CONTINUED)

the metrokey is a key to the city, used for hailing and commanding metronome cars, accessing public transit services, and wayfinding at transfer points.



Transit hubs will be labelled with a color coded system of pathways. As the user leaves the car, their MetroKey is illuminated with the color of their next mode of transit. The user follows their color to their train or bus, where they scan in using their MetroKey in lieu of a traditional metro pass and board.

The automobile drop-off/pick-up point at each transit hub is designed to mimic the mode of transportation to which the user is changing. This helps to create a seamless transfer experience. When arriving at a train station, the car will pull up at a platform parallel to the train platforms. The user will deboard onto the platform and make a transfer in the same manner as they would were they transferring between trains. The automobile platform consist of a long row of diagonal pull off spaces coming off of a road. The spaces are large enough and oriented so that the cars are nearly parallel to the road. This nearly parallel orientation creates negative space between the vehicles and the road to give passengers a comfortable space to board and deboard. The angle also allows the cars to pull out forward without having to back out through the boarding areas of other vehicles or slow traffic in the road. At bus stops, cars will use pull-off areas or do curbside drop-offs, depending on the existing infrastructure. The user will then deboard the car and board their train in the same manner they would transfer between two busses.

The user makes further transfers within the public transit network using the MetroKey’s color guidance system. Once they have reached the transit hub nearest to their final destination, the user can board another car. The car, knowing the final destination associated with the MetroKey, needs only to be commanded to begin the final leg of the trip. The final drop off, similar to the initial pick-up, occurs either at a hub or curbside, depending on the location.

AT THE STATION

at metronome stations, cars behave like the mode of transportation they connect with, facilitating seamless, effortless transfers between transit modes.



urban transit stops that blend into the urban environment, connecting neighborhoods and promoting vibrant street life.

before metronome | after metronome



suburban transit hubs that move users from metronome cars to mass transit quickly and efficiently, making transit-oriented commuting possible for all neighborhoods.




exurban transit stations that connect households in bedroom communities with the transit corridors that serve them.




an operational protocol based on neighborhood density, walkability, and curbside availability.

metronome stoppick-up/drop-off zone

curbsidepick-up/drop-off zone



CAR OWNERSHIP

*Calculated based on average automobile use time.

$36*

ZIPCAR$10-$20 per hour

METRONOME$20 per hour

pay by the minute

pay by the hour

dispersed payments

$/hr

Cost of taking a 1 hour trip

$24

$10-$20

$13.33 car only trip

with transit integration$3.33

(must pay for full hour)

(high sunk costs)

(10 min by car, 30 min by public transit)

(20 min to destination, 20 min @ destination, 20 min to home)

Cost of driving for one hour

COST OF SERVICE

Payments are made on a monthly basis. The user is billed at the end of every month for their usage. Payments for the autonomous car portion bill are tallied based on total minutes of car service. The tariffs for public transit are also included in the bill.

a simple monthly bill linked to users’ metronome accounts, making transportation payments as easy as a utility bill. payments for the autonomous car portion bill are tallied based on total minutes of car service. tariffs for public transit are also included in the bill.



port authoritycars.

port authoritytrains.

port authoritybuses.



gateway center.downtown


gatew

ay ce

nter.

downt

own

north

alleg

heny

.

downt

own

stadiu

m.

north

side

obse

rvator

y hill.

north

side

sena

te.

north

side

statio

n sq

uare.

downt

own

sout

h hil

ls jun

ction

.

sout

h hil

ls

crafto

n.

sout

h hil

ls

ingelw

ood.

sout

h hil

ls

robins

on.

sout

h hil

ls

airpo

rt.

sout

h hil

ls

bluffs.east pittsburgh

consol center.

downtown

forbes at atwood.

uni pittsburgh.

oakland

forbes at morewood.

carnegie mellon.

oakland

walnut at bellefonte.shadyside


gatew

ay ce

nter.

downt

own

north

alleg

heny

.

downt

own

stadiu

m.

north

side

obse

rvator

y hill.

north

side

sena

te.

north

side

statio

n sq

uare.

downt

own

sout

h hil

ls jun

ction

.

sout

h hil

ls

crafto

n.

sout

h hil

ls

ingelw

ood.

sout

h hil

ls

robins

on.

sout

h hil

ls

airpo

rt.

sout

h hil

ls

bluffs.east pittsburgh

consol center.

downtown

forbes at atwood.

uni pittsburgh.

oakland

forbes at morewood.

carnegie mellon.

oakland

a brand based on the interconnectedness of different transit modes.



3.3THE METRONOME EXPERIENCE

As early as 1965, Kevin Lynch, in landmark essay The City as Environment, defended the urban environment, suggesting that a world-city, an ecumenopolis, may not be the “we magnify the city we know, and this is what horrifies us.” But he reminds us, “We cling to the notion of a world with an urban inside and a rural outside, divided between the exciting but dirty and disagreeable city and the placid countryside where people live in dull good health. The contrast is ceasing to have any validity.”

While Lynch stopped short of denouncing the horizontal sprawling growth of the city, he acknowledged that the experiential monotony of transportation within cities needs rectification. “Cities have many human implications [...] history,economics,physical and social organization, problems of communication, transportation, land use, and so on. Our fears, however, rise from another quarter: the way in which the environment affects our lives through our immediate perception and daily use of it. The physical form of a city has a sensuous impact that profoundly conditions the lives of its people, and this is often ignored in the task of city-building.”



1. The time is approaching 6:30. Kai is in his apartment getting dressed for a date with his girlfriend Sonia. Kai and Sonia are going to dinner to celebrate her birthday. They have a reservation at a restaurant near Sonia’s apartment at 7:00. Kai heads for the door, grabbing his MetroKey on his way out.

2. Kai calls for a Metronome pick up as he leaves his apartment building.

Kai lives near the dense city center, so he waits for his car to arrive at a curbside pick up station at the corner of his block. After a few minutes, a car arrives.

When Kai calls for a pick up, Metronome is sent coordinates for Kai’s location. Based off of these coordinates, Metronome finds the nearest available car. Because Kai is located in the denser city center, the car is sent to the nearest curbside pick up station. This is to cope with limited availability of curb space in the city. Further out from the city center, Metronome cars can make drop offs at exact locations rather than relying on pick up stations.

3. Kai enters and inputs his final destination. Once Kai has situated himself in the vehicle, the metronome car pulls away from the curb and begins its journey. Kai shoots Sonya a text to let her know that he is on his way.

When Kai enters his final destination, the car calculates his route using the most optimal mode of transportation. The journey is displayed within the vehicle. Metronome charges his account based on the amount of time he spends in the car.

4. Kai hops out of the car and releases it from service with his MetroKey, which is currently glowing blue. If Kai doesn’t release the car from service manually, the car will be automatically released when he checks in to his next mode of transit. Prompted by the lighted metro key, Kai follows signage that delineates his route using a color code. Kai follows the blue path, as indicated by the MetroKey, scans the MetroKey at the gate, and boards the appropriate train.



5. Metronome integrated transit hubs are set up with color based routes to guide passengers through their commutes. The MetroKey displays the color of the route each passenger should take. At these transit hubs the MetroKey is also used in lieu of a traditional bus or metro card to gain access to each service.

6. The train takes Kai away from the city center to a hub near the restaurant. Kai gets off at the station, and walks off of the platform to the adjoined Metronome pick up bay. He boards the nearest vehicle. Because Kai’s trip is associated with his MetroKey, there is no need for him to re-enter his final destination. Kai simply confirms the trip, and the car pulls away from the curb.

From here it is only a 4 minute drive to the restaurant. Once again, Metronome charges his account based on the amount of time he spends in the car.

7. The car drops Kai off at the curb in front of the restaurant, with 3 minutes to spare before his reservation. Kai releases the car from service as he approaches Sonia, who has also just arrived at the restaurant.

8. As Kai and Sonia walk towards the restaurant, the Metronome car has already departed to pick up its next passenger.



SECTION 4:IMPLEMENTATION



Infrastructure

ManufacturingGeneral MotorsHTC (Phone)

ServiceMetronome Verizon

TechnologyGoogle AutoGoogle Android

Culture

PolicyNTSBFCC

Metronome is a service that sits at the confluence of technological, manufacturing, political, infrastructural, and cultural forces. Key players in each field–from software companies like Google or Microsoft, to manufacturers like General Motors and Bridgestone, to policy and popular support.

The implementation process for Metronome begins in a climate ripe for change. With the rising popularity of car sharing services and cars becoming more integrated with technology, it is an appropriate time to begin to shift away from traditional paradigms of single car ownership. Automated driving systems have already been tested successfully and even implemented in Masdar City. The first step Metronome needs to take towards this future is to establish partnerships with Google to aid in the development. Google has been leading the charge for autonomous driving and has already put working vehicles on the road in San Francisco.

After the first five years of development, Metronome will establish a partnership with GM for manufacturing and begin beta trials in four pilot cities. Metronome has chosen Washington DC for its connections with policy, San Francisco as the base for Google, Detroit as the base for GM and Pittsburgh for its disjointed transit infrastructure. Before this can happen,

policy changes in Pennsylvania and Michigan will have to be made to allow for legal autonomous driving. Shortly after implementation, Metronome is expecting an accident to occur between an automated and a non-automated vehicle. This will be a key turning point for autonomous vehicle legislation. This event will set the precedent for determining liability. The ideal and likely scenario is that autonomous drivers will be considered fully logical drivers as they are incapable of violating traffic laws. For this reason autonomous vehicles will not assume liability in accidents with non autonomous vehicles. This will shift the risk of driving onto the human driver. In the future, this will be key in making autonomous vehicles legal for unlicensed drivers. This change will increase the availability of autonomous transit, and begin to foster a generation of unlicensed autonomous commuters. The other early adopters of autonomation are expected to be taxis and public transit.

Once the pilot cities have verified the feasibility of this autonomous transit network, other early adopter cities will begin to implement Metronome. By this time it is expected that autonomous vehicles will be legal in most states and will become commercially available for single owners. These will initially be very expensive and financially impractical for the average person, further incentivising car sharing. This will be followed by the manufacture of autonomous vehicles specifically for transit systems. These will be

4.1MAKING METRONOME HAPPEN



radically different from single owner models, shifting away from the current cockpit paradigm of car design. Around this time, Metronome will also begin integrating infrastructure with that of existing transit networks (e.g. Metronome pick-up stations).

The next major legislative change required would start in the realm of consumer electronics. The US will need to adopt Europe’s electronic waste reclamation policies. Europe’s policy holds manufacturers responsible for the disposal of their own goods. Ideally, this policy will extend to automobiles and promote performance contracting over traditional notions of material ownership. Around the time this is accomplished, Metronome should have reached implementation in most major cities in the United States.

Automated driving research continues

Cars are primarily a single owner resource.

Begin developement

Metronome establishes a partnership with Google for technical develope-ment.

Automobile centric transportation infrastruc-ture.

Poorly integrated mass transit systems.

Cars are primarily a single owner resource.

Automated driving research continues

All entrants �nish DARPA Urban Challenge successfully

Car sharing services continue to grow

Begin developement

Metronome implements carpooling features into the automo-bile portion of its service.

METRONOME

TRAVEL EXPERIENCE

TECHNOLOGY

BUSINESS STRATEGY +CULTURE

POLICY

MANUFACTURING

TODAY 5 YEARS 10 YEARS 15 YEARS 20 YEARS

Driver is 100% liable for automo-bile actions

Autonomous cars legal in California, Nevada, Florida and DC.

Synchroniza-tion between smart phones and cars

Car media systems disable deep features during driving

Car media interfaces begin to connect with the internet

Washington DC, San Francisco, Detroit and Pittsburgh implement Metronome Beta

Automated and non-automated vehicles exist togethor.

Develope-ment of display + sensor systems for information relay, e.g. radar

Car sharing continues to grow in USA.Car use continues to decline in Europe

Autonomous cars legal in Michigan and Pennsylvania

Manufactur-ers include override function + require license to avoid liabilty.

Metronome establishes a partnership with GM for manufactur-ing.

Automated vehicles enable productive commuting.

Taxis, and public transit are early adopters of automation.

Accident between automated and non automated vehicle sets precident for liabities.

Advance-ments in lane assist, cruise control, self parking, etc.

Autonomous cars become commercially available. Initially expensive.

Autonomous driving available to unlicensed drivers. No override required.

Unlicensed travellers can only use transit system style autonomous cars.

Automation allows for radical redesign of cars. Shift away from cockpit paradigm.

Increase in the availabil-ity of intercity travel.

Automated logistics optimization reduces congestion and cuts travel times.

Increased accessibility to city segments of all densities.

Washington DC, San Francisco, and Detroit implement full Metro-nome.

Early adopter cities begin Metronome implementa-tion. e.g. Austin

Begin integrating Metronome infrastructure with existing infrastruc-ture.

Single ownership autonomous cars are a status symbol.

High price of single owner autonomous vehicles increases incentives for shared usage.

Autonomous cars legal in most states.

Production of automated vehicles speci�cally for transit systems.

Production of radically redesigned vehicles begins.

USA mandates European style electronic waste reclamation.

Performance contracts solidify widespread acceptance of functional ownership.

Radical redesign of cars enables shared usage of Metro-nome.

Autonomous cars legal in all states.

USA extends waste reclamation to encompass automobiles.

Automotive manufactur-ers are incetivised to shift towards performance contracts.

Reduced pro�tability from single owner vehicles.

USA begins to repurpose unnecessary road infrastruc-ture.

Begin to see �rst generation of autonomous-only drivers.

Automobile becomes extension of living environment.

Metronome implemented by all major cities in the US.



CITIES

Detroit, Michigan

The symbolic heart of the American automotive industry–and perhaps most importantly, of key automotive partners including General Motors–Detroit would be an ideal early Metronome pilot city. Furthermore Detroit’s relatively low population density, high concentration of low-income populations, and lack of comprehensive public transit would see considerable benefit.

Washington, DC

As the capital of the United States, and the center of gravity for U.S. transportation policy, Washington would be a symbolic pilot city for Metronome. While it features a comprehensive light rail transit system within the city limits, Washington also consistently ranks among the worst cities for traffic congestion due to its high intercity commuter population, and is a common case study for alternative modes of transportation (e.g. bodysnatching).

San Francisco, California

San Francisco, along with the neighboring communities of Mountain View and Palo Alto, are technological powerhouses already leading the pack in automated driving systems. Autonomous vehicles have already been road tested and legalized in California, and teams such as Google and Stanford University have a vested interest seeing autonomous driving come to fruition.

Pittsburgh, PA

A midsized city consisting of neighborhoods fractured by hills and chasms, Pittsburgh and its unique topography has made traditional mass transit all but impossible. Furthermore, the presence of Carnegie Mellon University, whose entrants into the DARPA Urban Challenge have consistently made the podium, has a vested interest in testing systems such as Metronome.



no

4.2TRANSFORMING THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT

“Vast, drab, and chaotic, the colossus looks permanent but is in fact changing rapidly,” Lynch writes about the city in its current form. “Its enormity, its complexity and changefulness, the diversity of function and life style, our scale of control in relation to the whole-all cause us to doubt our ability to manage the quality of our surroundings. Strategic action at the metropolitan scale is desperately needed.”

In the long run, Metronome’s goal is to reclaim some of the urban environment once stolen by automobiles and automobile infrastructure, in order to create a more livable and accessible city. City development has been constrained by the volume of cars and congestion in urban areas. Parking both on and off the street is required in mass to house the many resting vehicles.

Even at peak times, the average city never has more than 12 percent of vehicles actively driving. This means at least 88 percent of vehicles are resting at any given time. Metronome delivers an alternative to traditional car ownership that eliminates the need for cars spend the overwhelming majority of their lives at rest. With Metronome, a city’s vehicles remain hard at work, rather than wasting valuable utility and occupying precious space. This opens up parking infrastructure to be reclaimed by urban development. By guiding

commuters into public transportation, Metronome also drastically reduces the demand for active automobiles. A commute that was formerly made solely by automobile, may now only require a vehicle for 10 or 20 percent of the journey.

This drastic decrease in traffic allows urban areas to not only reclaim parking infrastructure, but even take back whole roads that are no longer necessary. By reducing the burdens placed on the city by excessive automobile use, Metronome can begin to breath life into the cities formerly suffocated by traffic jams and smog. Metronome envisions a world not constrained by roads, but empowered by them.



access before metronome | after metronome

improving access to the city by transit for those without single-owner automobiles.



changing the face urban environment in favor of pedestrian-oriented design.

street before metronome | after metronome



plan before metronome | after metronome

altering the fabric of the city to increase density and accessibility.

Sidewalks can be reclaimed. With less need for on-street parking and the divorce of the building from its parking requirements, the sidewalk can be widened and beautified, restaurants and cafes can begin to spill out into the street.

New development can begin to occur. As parking lots become increasingly unused, the city can begin to repurpose plots to become new infill developments, increasing city density and creating a more cohesive urban fabric.

Less car traffic, more walking and biking. As Metronome begins to depopulate cars from the city, the streets become safer for pedestrians and cyclists, promoting walkability. The reclamation of streets also paves the way for new bike lanes.

Repurposed land can lead to a higher quality of life. More space for parks, playgrounds, urban gardens, and other on-street public amenities.

Access to the transit network from anywhere, changing the psychographic of the city. In areas underserved by conventional transit corridors, Metronome can connect neighborhoods with the transit network, increasing intracity mobility. Access to neighborhoods for those who do not currently own automobiles can reverse neighborhood homogenization, promote a vibrant, diverse street culture, and significantly alter the psychographic of a given neighborhood.



plan before metronome | after metronome

altering the fabric of the city to increase livability and desirability.

Entire city blocks could be designated car-free. With the need for street parking greatly reduced, Metronome cars can be efficiently directed around entire city blocks without hassle. The strategic placement of Metronome stops near car-free zones could encourage entire neighborhoods to relinquish car ownership in favor of Metronome services.

Streets will become quieter. The increasing use of transit networks and the use of Metronome cars can turn urban fringe neighboods into safer, more tranquil environments.

A return to pedestrian-centered architecture. No longer merely shapes and angles viewed at high speed from passing vehicles, urban architecture could shift back toward designing for the pedestrian experience, leading to more interesting, higher fidelity cityscapes.



Miroslav Azis

As with many projects, size and scale seemed to be, at first, debilitating to our process. The amount of speculation and forward-thinking to project a likely yet uncertain future, and to design a system based on such speculation, was indeed a challenge. Nevertheless, we found a way to break through the immense scale of our problem spaces–automated cars, mass transit, urban sprawl, ridesharing and trust systems, the travel experience–and propose a unified solution.

Drawing from heavy research into automated vehicle development and plotting projected car design and infrastructure trends against urban planning responses was perhaps the most insightful component to the project. We made no clear distinction between the research phase and the final proposal, and still consider the Metronome proposal to be a research tool into the acceptance of shared autonomous vehicles.

I do feel some sense of urgency with the matter of autonomous vehicles and their potential impact on the world; however, I do think that the climate is ripe for change, and that within two decades, a service like Metronome will shift from pipe dream to imminent reality.

4.3REFLECTIONS

Christopher Taylor

This course was focused on designing around risks. Over the course of our project we uncovered and evaluated many potential risks related to our proposition. We speculated possible future scenarios for our project that could cause revenge effects and worked to address them preemptively.

One of the largest challenges faced over the course of this project, was that of maintaining perspective on the issue relative to the many different facets of our system. Using problem framing methods and other organization methods, we were able to keep tabs on the different parts of our problem and solution. Another problem we faced with this project, was the size of the task we took on. It was imperative in our case to cut down our project and focus on a manageably sized portion.





Documents

Metronome