1.    How is it possible to have 12,000 vehicles per hour (vph) on a three lane highway by 2016?  (In 2005, 3 lanes peak out near 6,000 vph.)

2.    But what if I like to be in control?  I don’t even like cruise control, anti-lock brakes, or tip-over prevention systems.

3.    What about privacy?  Won’t it be too easy to track everyone?

4.    Isn’t conversant technology expensive? How could it make money for you?

5.    But I thought mass transit would be a more permanent solution with less impact on the environment.

6.    How can a Transportation Challenge for fuel efficient Conversant Cars help with theUnited States’ balance of trade, oil dependency, prevent global warming, and improve education? PMPG "Speed" Limits.

7.    Would hazardous police chases be unnecessary?

8.    What about all the older cars?

9.    What about car-pools or poor or non-driving people?

10.  What about fuel efficiency conflicting with the speed incentives?

11.  Would Conversant technology reduce the incidence of childhood and adult obesity?

12.  Would Conversant technology contribute to urban sprawl?

13.  Why should California lead a Transportation Challenge for fuel efficient Conversant Cars?

14.  What about hackers or terrorists messing with the conversant devices?

15.  What about pets or wildlife on the road?

16.  What happens in "total system failure?"

17.   Isn’t this impossible?

1.         How is it possible to have 12,000 vehicles per hour (vph) on a three lane highway by 2016?  (In 2005, 3 lanes peak out near 6,000 vph.)

If everyone were a safe driver, cars would be passing no more than one every three seconds which gives a maximum of 1,200 vph per lane, regardless of how fast, or how slow, the vehicles are moving. Most everyone follows too close, nearly doubling the actual California freeway lane capacity to about 2,000 vph. (2,000 vph per lane is a real-world lane capacity verified with actual vehicle counts. Craming more cars per lane usually triggers a sudden speed drop from 60 - 70 mph to 0 - 30 mph.)

The average vehicle is about 20 feet long. The fully-guardian vehicles travel in groups of five with 10 feet bumper-to-bumper. A group of five vehicles is about 140 feet (or about 1.4 seconds) long.  The distance between groups is Drivers' Handbook recommended 3 seconds.  Therefore, five cars pass every 4.4 seconds per lane or 4,000 vph per lane, 12,000 vehicles per hour for a 3 lane highway.  More Calcs.

Between 2007 – 2015 The Transportation Challenge proves and improves the technology.  Between 2008 and 2011, manufacturers produce “Guardian Ready” vehicles.  These vehicles have the drive-by-wire and a port for the conversant device.

Seeing the proven technology, Caltrans and local governments make known a schedule of benefits for fully- and semi-conversant vehicles:

2012-2016 – Gradual speed benefits and mandatory fully-conversant for the faster lanes.

Beyond 2017 - Further refinements in vehicles and racing in the Transportation Challenge conotinue to improve the safe vph beyond 10,000 vph per lane.

2.         But what if I like to be in control?  I don’t even like cruise control, anti-lock brakes, or tip-over prevention systems.

1. You will have a switch (just like for cruise control).  When you put the switch in semi-conversant, you will be in control.  The system would not intervene except to prevent accidents or traffic jams.  But it would provide warnings such as, “Don’t change lanes, fast weaver coming from behind on the right.” or “Freeway congesting due to debris three miles ahead in lane 4.  Lanes 1 and 2 going fully conversant in 30 seconds.  Lane 3 and 4 remaining semi-convesant.”
2. Relax! You have been feeling safe while not in control!  A computer controls your your brakes.  40% of 2007 model year vehicles have electronic stability control. Per the April 2007 Scientific American, page 96, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates stability control (drive-by-wire brakes, engine, and steering) adds $111 to car costs, and would save up to 10,300 lives per year (placing it between seat belts and air bags for life saving).  NHTSA wants stability control to be standard for the 2012 model year.  Names for such systems include Dynamic Stability Control (BMW), SbalitiTrak (General Motors), and Interactive Vehicle Dynamics (Ford).
3. Or you could put the switch in full-conversant, and take a nap until the system wakes you up because you are exiting the freeway.  (Freeways are easier for conversant technology than surface streets.  Figure 2025 before you can sleep all the way to the office.)
4. Large commercial trucks would always operate in fully conversant mode.  That means you could be in control of your car while the semi-conversant system keeps the truck from hitting you.
5. Even now you allow stop lights, lane markers, your expectations for the motions of other drivers, the threat of a speeding ticket, and the like to control your car indirectly.  You might even let your spouse drive, if only when you expect traffic jams.
6. Before cars, you controlled a horse but horses wouldn't run into each other.  Consider your level of control has progressed from horses to manual transmission, brakes, steering, to power brakes, steering, automatic transmission, and now finally all the way to horse-sense.
7. Transport Canada is selling (Toronto Globle and Mail January 2006) speeding preventing devices for $290.  The dashboard-mounted device uses GPS and digital speed-limit map.  So you best e-mail the Gov. and get some congestion relief to go with any speed limiting devices.  
8. It’s not fun (and you don’t have much to control) when the freeway becomes a parking lot.

3.         What about privacy?  Won’t it be too easy to track everyone?

a.       No, not easier.  Already anyone can be tracked or their vehicle’s movements recorded with a little magnetically attached global positioning system (GPS) and radio device.  The Los Angeles Police Department is buying grill-mounted launcers to shoot a GPS tag that sticks to offending vehicles.  See February 2007 Popular Science, Page 40.

b.       The conversant device needs only record about 10 seconds prior to a crash.  That would be sufficient to establish the facts of the rare accident.

c.       So write your elected representative to insist on a maximum of 10 seconds.

There were booths for those wanting left turn arrows, lights, 4-way stops, less police chases, protected bicycle lanes, no cell-phone use, no drug or alcohol impaired drivers, center dividers, and more causes than the little girl could understand.  She had thought cars crashed mostly at her intersection.  She was saddened to learn there were so many way for cars to hurt people.

After a few minutes of wandering, she was surprised to recognize a booth for her intersection.  She no sooner introduced herself, and then the main event started.  It seems the City had only $1 million to satisfy all this year’s traffic safety needs, so they held an auction.  The auctioneer would name an intersection or a cause.  The people in the booths would bid.  But they didn’t bid money.  They would bid deaths, injuries, volunteer efforts, and public support.  The biggest bids would get the project they wanted.  The girl was surprised to learn her intersection didn’t have enough dead people to win this year.

(Little Girl continued in Technology)

4.                  Isn’t conversant technology expensive?  How could it make money for you?

a.                   No.  Electronics keep getting less expensive.  We would spend about $300 each and earn about $6,000 each.  See the "napkin" economic analysis..

b.                   What’s your time worth?  You could safely nap, use the phone, or work on a computer at 75 miles per hour.  Compare that to spending an hour a day at 0 to 30 miles per hour.

c.                   What are your loved ones worth?  Conversant technology keeps them from being hurt or killed.

d.                   As of November 2005 General Motors V2V (primitive conversant technology based on their OnStar system) experts predicted as little as an extra $200 to add V2V to a car.  If you keep a car about five years, conversant technology saves you on the order of $2,000 in taxes and insurance.  Without it, you would pay increased taxes for less congestion relief with more pavement or 20^th Century mass transit.

e.                   If you don’t believe politicians are considering new taxes to fund transportation, consider thatOregon is testing a program that would tax you by the mile.  A device on your car would tell gas pumps how many miles you drove and collect the tax when you buy gas.  Several California Counties have, and the Ventura County Transportation Commission has, been pushing a general sales tax to fund more pavement and 20^th Century mass transit.

f.                    As fuel efficiency improves, the price of gas will decrease (supply-demand curve).  And you will spend less money because you buy less gas.  Therefore, the $/gallon may have to increase, to keep roads very well maintained.  But the net result is your paying less per mile.

g.                     The Challenge more than pays for itself with insurance savings! More calcs.

5.                  But I thought mass transit would be a more permanent solution with less impact on the environment.

a.       You haven’t been paying attention.  Guardian vehicles become 21^st Century mass transit.  And without burning fuel half-empty most of the time.  And without tax dollars.  (Other than the miniscule investment in running a transportation challenge.)

b.       Were you going to ride the bus, or just want everyone else to?

c.       Have you checked the environmental impact of 20^th Century mass transit?  For example, what is the actual passenger miles per gallon of a bus or rail system?  Be sure to include the energy use of admin, engineering, drivers, and maintenance transit workers driving to their jobs (unless they all ride the bus).  Fuel efficiency is not that good because transit vehicles either spend a lot of time with few riders or they are inconvenient.  Ever considered taking Metrolink fromVentura County intoLos Angeles for a half-day.  It can’t be done (as of November 2005).

d.       The commuting bicycle (as opposed to the top of SUV bicycle) is by far the most energy efficient and lowest environment impact way to get around.  The semi-conversant device makes a 3’ wide paved road shoulder plenty of “bike lane.”  Add controls to fully-conversant cars to prevent parked-car doors opening into car or bicycle traffic and we have bicycle nirvana.

6.         How can a Transportation Challenge for fuel efficient Conversant Cars help with the United States’ balance of trade, oil dependency, prevent global warming, and improve education?

a.       Fuel efficiency is better, and air pollution less, at 70 mph than in stop and go.

b.       Drivers comfortable with conversant technology will be able to relax in very small vehicles.

c.       Making the faster lanes available on a passenger-mile per gallon basis, instead of just on the number of passengers is a better incentive to fuel efficiency than “standards” or even higher fuel prices.  People want to get there faster.

d.       Less gas needed means less gas imported.  Less gas imported means a better balance of trade.  As a side benefit, oil exporting countries will have less money that can trickle into terrorist hands.

e.       A good elected leader knows, there is only so much tax money to go around.  Spend less on transportation and there will be more available for education (or defense, or health care, or whatever).

f.        With conversant technology people don’t have to spend as much on repairing cars or buying funerals.  People and goods aren’t wasting time in traffic jams.  People will have  more money to give to political causes or to pay in taxes, or better yet, more money to give to charity, or invest in American business.   People will also have more time to make products or get educated.

g.       Using less energy to get there, less frequent replacement of “totaled” cars, less use of the world’s resources means less greenhouse gases.

PMPG “speed” limits

For the past century, auto manufacturers have made profits selling vehicles with “high performance.”  Simply, the profit on a more expensive (often larger) car is more than the profit on a less expensive car.  The auto makers’ advertisements are very persuasive.  The auto makers have great success by playing to human nature.

For the past few decades, our elected leaders have experienced only moderate success at mandating better fuel efficiency.  They have even less success at influencing a reduction in fossil fuel use.  Fuel efficiency standards create a floor.  Standards are a Pass/Fail system set so low that 90% of vehicles can pass.  Standards aren’t playing to human nature.

The auto makers have shown us that high performance sells.  We need only ensure that fuel efficiency is the most important feature of a high performance vehicle.  (We’ll address safety further below.)  We have the technology (passenger seat sensors adjust air bag inflation and Volvo’s intruder detector, fuel meters, and odometers) for cars to display or radio announce their real-time passenger miles per gallon (pmpg).  Instead of mile per hour (mph) speed limits for the carpool or “fast” lanes on freeways, we could have pmpg limits.

The top speed might be 80 mph, but only if your vehicle achieves a real-time 60 pmpg at 80 mph.  For 2006 model vehicles, a streamlined motorcycle with a small engine, a 2006 Prius with 2 occupants, an SUV with 4 to 6 occupants would be allowed the maximum speed.  Vehicles that must stay below 70 mph to keep above 60 pmpg must remain in the two “slowest” (right most) lanes.

After 25% of single occupant vehicles occupying left lanes are achieving the then-current pmpg limit at 80 mph, the limit is raised 10 pmpg.  For example, suppose the 60 pmpg limit is announced in January 2008 for a January 2010 start.  And suppose by March 2012, a quarter of the vehicles in the left lanes are achieving 60 mpg.  Then 70 pmpg would become the standard starting January 2014.

Note that pmpg limits would be an incentive for ride sharing, thus providing a double incentive for reducing fuel demand.

7.                  Would hazardous police chases be unnecessary?

Granted, in 2006, a change of law would more quickly eliminate police chases.  For a discussion of the slaughter of innocents from police chases and to support correct-chase laws, visit http://www.kristieslaw.org/.  Or, police could imitate the Los Angeles Police Department in buying grill-mounted launcers to shoot a GPS tag that sticks to offending vehicles.  See February 2007 Popular Science, Page 40.  Guardian Technology offers many options for eliminating innocent’s injury from police pursuit, I’llmention just a few.  The tougher part will be finding the ideal balance between public safety and concerns for “big brother.”

a.       At the direction of the car’s owner, a stolen car would pull over to the side of the road safely and stop (wherever it was).

b.       Private cars can’t speed, police cars can speed.

c.       A car, once driven erratically, would telegraph its location to the police without the need for pursuit.

d.       Police may carry a “magic wand” that causes a car to pull over to the side of the road safely and stop.

8.                  What about all the older cars?

a.       You want to make a slower transition so that we have a few million more older cars without the technology, before taking serious action?

b.       With the left lane access incentives of Answer 1, conversant car technology will be more standard on 2011+ model cars than either automatic transmissions or cruise control are in 2005.

c.       People who don’t normally buy new cars every five years will want a new car with conversant technology, meaning faster than normal vehicle turnover.  Older cars will be worth less and likely exported to “non-conversant” states.  (IfCalifornia doesn’t lead in this,California could be a dumping ground for used cars.)

d.       Older cars can keep using surface streets, although they may be phased off of most freeways (just like not allowing bicycles or small motorcycles on freeways now).

9.                  What about car-pools or poor or non-driving people?

See the Fossil Free page.

Setting Up ‘poolin

Prospective riders and drivers would fill out an on-line application, listing their initial circle of potential ‘pooling buddies.  After confirming their driving record, setting up their automatic auto insurance notification, and preparing their bank account, prospective 'poolers would be invited to pick up their special cell phone at any of several stores.  The in-store process would require identification.  It would also involve training in how to operate the ‘pooling phone features and ‘pool “etiquette.”

Eventually, after the grant funds are expended, the program may be self-funding.  For example the administering agency might collect 25 cents per mile from riders while giving drivers 20 cents per mile.  The program may also be coordinated with charities to fund ‘pooling for those in need.  The self-funding can be used as a loss-leader; users would repay the phone purchase over time in either the typical monthly phone payments or when ‘pooling.

Note that the ‘pooling data should interface with traditional transit.  A rider may receive a reply from a bus or train.  Plus, transit agencies can use the statistics from the ‘pooling requests to better arrange the traditional transit routes.

In places of limited parking, the ‘pooling could include assigned parking spots, coordinated to be available just as the car arrives.  And the phone directs the driver directly to the available spot.

The Grant Proposal Actions

a.      Conversant technology prevents accidents, saves the lives, and gets people there faster without discrimination because of the semi-conversant feature.  The safety removes a concern for 'poolers.

b.       Poor people ride bicycles, walk, or ride buses disproportionately.  Bicyclists and pedestrians will be a lot safer with conversant technology.

    c.        'Pools could be operated by government or private charities.

10.              What about fuel efficiency conflicting with the speed incentives?

a.       Conversant technology greatly reduces the impression that larger cars are safer, the feeling that larger cars are more dominating, the utility of seeing over smaller cars, and the intimidation of high headlights in the rear view mirror.  The improved desirability of smaller cars makes possible a tremendous improvement in fuel efficiency.

b.       The congestion relief benefits of Conversant technology are amplified by either very small cars or on-the-fly carpooling.  This provides a nexus for restricting the “fast” lane to very efficient (say +100-gallon per passenger-mile) vehicles.

c.       Fuel efficiency is better addressed with technology than with speed limits.  Include fuel efficiency as part of the Transportation Challenge and the speed incentives.  Scrap the mediocre fuel efficiency standards in favor of minimum gallons per passenger mile in order to use a faster lane.  Fast cars can be very fuel efficient.  The Human Powered Vehicle Association has proven that about 1 horsepower (what an athlete can produce for a minute) can accelerate a single person car to 80 miles per hour.

11.              Would Conversant technology reduce the incidence of childhood and adult obesity?

a.       Yes.  The semi-conversant device, perhaps included in a watch, keeps children safe from vehicles while walking or bicycling to school.

b.       The same is true of adult commuters.

c.       Yes!  By making very small cars safe, conversant technology would make hybrid gas-electric-human powered vehicles an attractive alternative to “spinning nowhere” in a gym.  In such a vehicle a person would pedal a generator to provide a steady 0.25 to 0.5 horsepower, on the order of 5% to 50% of the power required.

12.              Would Conversant technology contribute to urban sprawl?

a.       No.  Not as much as adding tax funded traffic lanes, especially sales tax funded features.  Tax funded traffic lanes create a sense of entitlement to road use.

b.       No.  Not as much as more 20^th Century mass transit.  Trains and buses running between communities allow each community to become a new center of sprawl for a megalopolis.

c.       No.  The technology encourages generally self-contained communities by making walking and bicycling safer, and allowing people to feel safe while walking or bicycling.

d.       No.  The technology allows rural roads to safely remain low speed, single lane, winding rural roads, by removing the pressure for “safety” improvements.  Rural roads might even be single lane with wide paved shoulders for bicycles where cars would politely move aside to allow each other to pass.

e.       No.  Answers a-d can be incorporated into a Transportation Challenge to ensure the technology favors tighter clusters for living.

f.        Yes.  If the technology evolves with the current unorganized process without a Challenge to provide a clear vision of desired end result.  The Fall 2005 development of intelligent transportation is like a kindergarten class in a candy factory.  Who knows what piece of sugar will grab the attention of manufacturers or government planners/engineers?  (Write, e-mail, phone - Tell them what you need.)  The technology will enable longer commutes on existing freeways.

13.              Why should California lead on Conversant Cars?

a.       California has a goodly share of the traffic congestion of the developed world.

b.       California has a goodly share of the world’s computer and transportation technology talent.

c.       Californian's could save $90 billion.  Governor Schwarzenegger has the right idea to invest in infrastructure.  But with the 20^th Century approach to traffic congestion,California spends $107 billion for no real safety improvement and reduces traffic congestion from 90 hours per year per person to 70 hours per year.  With Conversant technology, Californian’s spend $1 billion of public funds on the Transportation Challenge and perhaps $15 billion in private funds at $300 per car.  But the conversant technology could save thousands of lives, billions of dollars (from accidents), and is the 21^st Century mass transit dropping congestion toward 10 hours per year.

d.       California is engaged in an effort to reduce global warming gases.

e.       California has the 7^th or 8^th largest economy in the world to afford the effort.

f.   Elevating the Challenge to the national level introduces 50x the politics.  At the national level it will be more difficult to preserve the fuel efficiency component or the bicycle and pedestrian saving components.  The benefits aren’t equally shared among states.  Many states aren’t congested, although all would benefit from less traffic accidents.  Much time (and more lives) will be lost as states maneuver for “hosting” rights.

g.   California lost to  Texas in the Rose Bowl.  California should get a shot at beating Texas to transportation effectiveness.

14.              What about hackers or terrorists messing with the conversant devices? 

1. Oh. Like 20th Century mass transit in is safe from terrorist or hackers.  I was on the London Underground the day before their 2005 bombings.  21st Century technology is a much more robust and decentralized system not offering as concentrated a target.
2. The devices should not be reprogrammable via radio.  If hacking requires one physically replace a chip, than hacking is not any more likely than someone cutting brake cables or planting a bomb in a car in 2005.

15.             What about pets or wildlife on the road?

1. Add a frontal proximity censor option for those who want to be fully-conversant in places where and at times when large animals might be on the road.
2. Pets could be semi-conversant with a "guardian angel" collar, just like bicyclists and pedestrans can be with "cellphones."  The collar may double as a potty training aid.

16.        What happens in "total system failure?"

Perhaps $1,000,000 of computer simulations should give us a feel for how to coast down from a “total system failure.”   As one example, the total system failure might be a solar flare caused sudden unexpected complete loss of radio communications in the middle of rush hour.  (Note that a lot of haphazardly and independently automated motor vehicles, airplanes, trains, and ships would be having problems in this situation.)  Hopefully, we will have a shielded inertial sensor/navigation system that will slow all the vehicles uniformly to a stop without a lot of violent collisions.  Or perhaps we decide everyone needs driving simulator training at regular intervals for just such eventualities.  In any case, the bar is set pretty low now withAmerica’s 6,000,000 crashes and 43,000 deaths annually.

17.    Isn’t this impossible?

a.       The Wall Street Journal, October 19, 2005, Page B1, “Team of Amateurs Cuts Ahead of Experts in Computer-Car Race”  The Gray Team was one of five finishing DARPA Grand Challenge contestants.  They are the “IT” guys of an insurance company at http://www.grayinsco.com Mr. Gray is quoted, “It’s a beautiful thing when people are ignorant that something is impossible.  In fact, that’s the American way.”

b.     Was impossible in 2005. As of April 2006, it was impossible to stop!  In January 2008, General Motors predicts 2018.