What can Star Trek's worst episode teach us about autonomous vehicles?

This is what happens when people believe one tech development can instantly fix all our transportation problems (Still from "Threshold," the 30th episode of Star Trek: Voyager, courtesy of Memory Alpha)

The date was January 29, 1996. Donald Trump hadn’t followed through on plans to run for president in the year’s presidential election. WMATA was still in the midst of aggressive Metro expansion. Twitter would not exist for another 10 years.

All was good with the world…until 8pm that night. Then, a new episode of Star Trek: Voyager aired. 

Normally, this would have made the evening a time to look forward to.

But this was no ordinary episode. Instead, it was “Threshold,” or, as I prefer to call the debacle, just “Janeway Lizard.”

A short summary of the plot:

• Tom Paris, the pilot of the show’s namesake ship, discovers a way to upgrade Voyager’s engines, allowing for instantaneous travel to anywhere in the universe. He hypes his discovery as something that would both solve the crew’s immediate transportation problem – the ship’s journey home is scheduled to take over 70 years using normal engines – then, upon return to Earth, solve all of Starfleet’s transportation problems.
• Paris conducts a successful infinite-speed shuttle test flight using the upgraded engine. However, soon after, he begins to mutate into a lizard, due to some sort of accelerated evolutionary process the infinite-speed travel caused. The ship’s doctor fails to stop Paris’s mutations, and soon enough he kidnaps Capt. Kathryn Janeway and takes her on another infinite-speed shuttle flight, causing her to turn into a lizard as well.
• Paris could have taken Janeway anywhere in the universe, but he decides to head to a planet near Voyager’s original location. Voyager (whose doctor has discovered a cure for the lizard mutation) detects them, but before the ship arrives at the planet, the mutated captain and pilot hook up and she gives birth to a litter of lizard babies.
• Though there’s now a cure for the health problems resulting from infinite-speed travel, the crew never uses the new technology again.  

Star Trek is an excellent TV and film franchise, but with more than 700 aired episodes a few bad outings were inevitable. The majority of the clunkers fall into the “so bad, it’s funny” category, but this one was…well, just bad. Even Brannon Braga, one of Voyager’s writers, called Threshold “a royal, steaming stinker.”

Some visions of future transportation make “Threshold” seem logical

“Threshold” was doomed to fail due to its basic premise: the idea that a new mode of transportation could render all alternatives obsolete and solve all known mobility problems.

But these days, lots of people talk about emerging autonomous vehicle technology the same way that Paris bragged about his infinite-speed engine. Enthusiasts for the new mode insist that the self-driving cars will virtually eliminate car crashes, traffic congestion, and even stoplights as, separated by mere inches, they travel at NASCAR speeds.

Some feel this future is such a certainty that we should forgo all investment in all options that are not car-based, from local buses and subways to high-speed rail. The nonstop flow of traffic through intersections would make biking or walking in our cities virtually impossible, but we’ve been told that the benefits will justify the sacrifice.

But what if we follow orders and go all-in for autonomous vehicles, only for them to fail to bring their promised perfection? Will we be out of options, just as Paris and Janeway were on the surface of that planet? 

We’ve already witnessed the results of blindly prioritizing a single transportation mode – regular automobiles – above all others. Given the tens of thousands of needless car crash deaths each year, the choking impact vehicles have on cities, and the high stress of driving or traveling in a car that we’ve subjected ourselves to, we might as well be lizards – or be forced to re-watch the hour-long “Threshold”.

A more effective approach is to use technology to enhance and build upon the ways we get around, rather than hope it will provide some magical fix-all.

The Voyager crew – and the show’s viewers – would have been better served had Paris put his efforts into practical upgrades of the ship’s engines, transporters, or shuttles to enhance the ship’s capabilities and speed up its trip home, rather than just plop an outlandish modification on everyone. He puts his talents to better use later in the series when he collaborates with other crew members to construct the state-of-the-art Delta Flyer shuttle, ensuring important missions succeed and propelling the plot of many excellent episodes. 

The American public would be best off if we use autonomous technology to fill gaps in our transportation systems and make it easier to use the options we have, rather than just throw everything we’ve worked for away.   

Chao’s strategy to undermine multimodal transportation: A war of attrition

Since Elaine Chao took charge of the U.S. Department of Transportation, I've noticed a strong resemblance between the agency's Navy Yard headquarters and a Borg Cube (Photo by me)

Elaine Chao’s Department of Transportation is currently withholding $1.4 billion in congressionally- and presidentially-authorized funding for transit improvements. This continued withholding, which received substantial media attention this week following Transportation for America’s unveiling of its “stuck in the station” clock, threatens the viability of many badly needed infrastructure projects nationwide. Many commentators suspect that this is a deliberate effort by Chao, who worked for the Koch Brothers-funded Heritage Foundation prior to her appointment as DOT secretary, to derail the projects and continue to restrict peoples’ transportation options.

In contrast to some observers, I’m confident that Chao will release the funds soon. But this is not all good news, and it’s not even a new strategy for her – she’s made a habit of turning obligation of funds for projects that had seemed done deals, including the Maryland Purple Line and electrification of Caltrain, into months-long wars. Furthermore, she withheld 5 percent of Fiscal Year 2017 funds from every single large urban transit system in Maryland, Virginia, and DC, purportedly due to issues establishing a new safety oversight commission for a single rail system.

Chao may wish she could shift all of the money to roads, or just spend the taxpayer dollars on her own outings to popular attractions near her agency’s headquarters such as Nationals Park, Audi Field, and Bluejacket Brewing. But though she knows she could never get away with pocketing the cash, she still has great potential to harm multimodal transportation’s future, for two main reasons:

• When the funds are finally released, transit advocates will celebrate pyrrhic victories after a long battle to make sure should-be no-brainer projects happen. Meanwhile, other proposals that deserve serious cost-benefit analysis will go forgotten.
• Due to increasing prices for steel and labor, among other issues, project costs will rise due to the delays. Transit opponents will then cite these cost overruns as a result of government inefficiency in their efforts to justify cancellation of other would-be beneficial projects when, in fact, their own allies caused the overruns.    

To make sure Chao can’t cause long-term harm, we need to keep the pressure on

In contrast to other high-level Trump Administration officials, Chao, a longtime Washington insider and the wife of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, has largely managed to stay quiet and out of the spotlight. This allows her to pursue her goals with relative ease.

This may make her the cabinet member most likely to cause long-term harm to our country. Chao may have more cabinet experience than the likes of Ben Carson or Betsy DeVos, but she’s no less of a threat to the people. Her objective, as the GOP’s 2016 platform clearly describes, is to eliminate funding for all service transportation other than driving, taking away our freedom to choose how we get around. If she succeeds, we will all suffer.

We might not be able to change Chao, but we can make sure she’s not allowed to operate in the shadows any longer. Transportation for America’s efforts have given us a strong start to build on, but even once she releases the latest round of long-withheld funds we can’t let her off the hook.

From now on, I’ll be closely watching – and regularly reporting on – DOT’s management of multimodal transportation funds. Also, every time I happen to be near her agency’s headquarters, I’ll post to social media (as I’ve made a habit of recently) to make sure people remain aware of what’s going on in Chao’s Castle. I suggest you all do the same.  

If all goes well, maybe Trump will bid farewell to Chao with his iconic “you’re fired,” and finally commit to the multimodal infrastructure improvements he promised voters during his campaign. But I’m not holding my breath. 

To address DC’s culture of transit complaining, WMATA should embrace transparency and service quality

Dupont Circle's streetcar station is a rare piece of DC-area transit infrastructure not subjected to any complaining...because no trains have stopped there for more than 50 years. (Photo by me)

For transit riders, little is more infuriating than a late bus or train. So when we encounter unreliable service, an all too common occurrence in our car-loving country, we’re bound to complain about it wherever we may be.

As I tend to be the transit advocate in the room, I bear the brunt of frustration from failures ranging from rush-hour meltdowns on New York's subway to Sacramento-area Yolobuses inexplicably going out of service at Woodland, CA’s County Fair Mall. I even have a friend who regularly posts to Facebook about her DC-area transit tribulations with the hashtag #andysfault.

I feel strong solidarity with transit complaints, as I’m as frustrated as anyone with America’s subpar multimodal transportation options. You don’t want to be anywhere near me when my train or bus isn’t working as it’s supposed to, because I’m not going to be in a good mood.

***

But since I moved to the nation’s capital two years ago, I’ve witnessed a sustained level of hostility toward this region’s transit system that no other place I’ve lived comes close to matching. Anonymously-operated social media feeds lead the endless bashing of WMATA, often going so far as to accuse people who mention anything non-negative about DC’s Metro of being a management- or union-paid troll.

Like every other U.S. transit provider, WMATA has major shortcomings (included two safety lapses in the past 10 years that caused passenger fatalities, issues with communication and transparency, and excessive track work-caused service disruptions) that give people plenty of reason to be mad.

Our region’s culture may further catalyze the complaining. Because DC is the capital, its residents are bound to be more interested in politics – and thus more aware of dysfunctional government bureaucracy – than their peers in other metropolitan areas. Also, the auto and oil lobby failed in their efforts to plow freeways through DC’s urban core (in contrast to most other U.S. cities), giving people working for those interests extra motivation to do everything they can to make Metro look bad.

But whatever the underlying reasons may be, there’s evidence that all the complaining here may harm peoples’ ability to get where they need to go. While most major U.S. transit systems have lost riders in recent years, WMATA’s ridership decline has been longer in duration and far more severe than those of its peers, necessitating major service cuts last year. Factors such as major track work, delays, and increasing availability of alternatives such as ride hailing or bikeshare likely play a role – but again, these factors are just as impactful in other major cities. 

Thus, I can’t help but wonder whether some citizens choose not to ride Metro based on what they’ve read on Twitter when, in reality, transit would be the optimal choice for their trips.

***

It’s on WMATA to do something about this problem, and do so immediately. Despite its finite budget, the agency can do much more to get the public on its side, helping create a friendlier political climate with greater potential for long-term transit improvements. The agency should be focused on providing better transit service, tangible safety improvements, and a commitment to transparency.  

    

If transit service is reliable, riders won’t have as much to complain about

To start, WMATA needs to provide the best rail and bus service it is capable of, at all times. Finding the right balance between frequent, reliable service and thorough infrastructure maintenance is vital. As Stephen Repetski (operator of the Metro Reasons Twitter account) has reported, WMATA currently does not do everything it can to minimize scheduled track work disruptions and fails to explain its reasoning to the public.

WMATA also needs to have better contingency plans to take care of its riders – rather than just leave them to fight for Ubers – during unplanned service disruptions. Possibilities to mitigate such disruptions include development of infrastructure for on-the-fly pop up bus lanes (this would require cooperation with local governments) and plans to temporarily realign and increase regular bus service to help mitigate a disruption within minutes of its onset (as opposed to awaiting shuttles). Frequent, honest communication in these situations is also vital.

(I’m working on a Mobility Lab article that will explore the role of buses during rail disruptions in more detail).    

Smaller improvements also could have a huge impact. For example, in my experience, WMATA fails to provide any real-time bus status information after midnight, even though bus service serves as a lifeline during hours when Metrorail doesn’t operate. If late-night workers and revelers could easily track and catch a bus home, they’d be more likely to ride. Increased late-night bus ridership would not only improve farebox recovery (helping justify increases to service), but also reliability, as taking ride hailing vehicles off the road would ease DC’s hellish nightlife traffic congestion.

Make it clear what’s being done to improve safety – and be honest when issues arise

I frequently hear people say that Metro is always “on fire” and “killing people.” Fortunately this is not true, but the fact that ordinary people who ride and support transit believe this demonstrates that something is wrong with WMATA’s safety culture. 

It’s understandable why people are nervous, given the safety lapses of the past. WMATA’s current management insists that the state of the system’s infrastructure is getting better, but occasional reports of track defects and other problems undermine their statements and deepen public distrust. The agency should release comprehensive weekly reports detailing results from ongoing inspections and explain how it plans to fix issues it discovers.

WMATA also should accurately state the nature of problems that do arise. For example, when an “arcing insulator” (essentially, a short circuit that causes a component of the third rail to spark) causes delays to service, the agency will often report a “track problem” as the cause of the disruption. However, the Twitterverse has no difficulty discovering the arcing insulator, fueling suspicions that Metro is trying to hide some sort of deeper problem. If they simply told riders that service is disrupted due to an arcing insulator, instead of just a “track problem,” at least delayed riders wouldn’t feel left in the dark.

Truth – the whole, complete truth – creates allies

Service and safety are not the only areas where WMATA needs to be more transparent and communicative.  In order for the public to trust the agency sufficiently to expand its budget, they have to know it will spend money effectively and in their interests. Further possibilities for reform are as follows:

• Residents of the counties WMATA serves should directly elect its board members, emulating agencies such as the San Francisco Bay Area’s BART and AC Transit. The board members should then be required to report their monthly transit usage, ensuring they sufficiently understand what it's like to ride their system.
• The agency should coordinate clearly with other regional transportation stakeholders, including local bus systems, commuter rail agencies, bikeshare providers, and (with major stipulations) ride hailing and taxi firms.
• WMATA should provide detailed monthly ridership reports. These reports should include research that analyzes possible reasons for fluctuations in ridership and proposes solutions to address any losses.
• It should be easy for third-party individuals or entities wishing to help improve the transit experience (for example, developers of a real-time transit app) to obtain and use the data they need.

Most DC-area residents want to see WMATA succeed, rather than be forced into cars. It’s time for our transit agency to embrace its vital role in our lives.    

An American oddity: the auto-oriented stadium

Real Madrid and Juventus shake hands prior to their August 4, 2018 friendly at FedEx Field in Landover, MD. The auto-oriented venue must have seemed quite foreign to the two European powerhouses, who both play in stadiums situated just steps from rail stations with robust gameday service (Photo by me) 

4 of DC’s 5 major professional sports teams – MLB’s Nationals, MLS’s DC United, NHL’s Capitals, and NBA’s Wizards – play in urban, transit-oriented venues integrated into vibrant neighborhoods.

But this past Saturday, I had the pleasure of watching Real Madrid beat Juventus 3-1 at FedEx Field, the region’s lone remaining suburban, parking lot-surrounded pro stadium that serves as the home of the NFL’s Redskins. The Landover, MD stadium opened in 1997, the same year the Caps and Wizards ditched that same suburb for a better future in Chinatown.

While Metro’s Blue and Silver Lines are the best way to reach FedEx Field, the 20 minute walk from Morgan Blvd Station to the stadium (and back) demonstrated just how absurd the concept of a stadium designed for driving is. While the International Champions’ Cup match was advertised as a friendly, Luis Suarez’s treatment of Juve’s Giorgio Chiellini during Uruguay’s 2014 World Cup victory over Italy was friendlier than the transportation infrastructure surrounding the NFL venue.

***

Pedestrians, we have our orders (photo by me)

Upon exiting the Metro station, which opened seven years after the stadium did, my friend and I were greeted with a large electronic sign telling us to “stay on sidewalk.” Police crime scene tape herded us, along with thousands of other pedestrians, onto the narrow walkway.

Cars face northbound on Morgan Blvd, towards FedEx field, but fail to move (photo by me)

Just a few minutes into the walk, we were moving faster than the cars on the adjacent road.

As they sit in stopped cars, drivers learn that they'll pay $50 to keep their cars stopped during the game (photo by me)

As we drew nearer to the stadium, overhead signs informed drivers that they needed to pay $50, nearly 13 times the cost of the most expensive Saturday Metro tickets, to park. This price, of course, was additional to the regular car ownership costs (such as fuel, maintenance, insurance, and the vehicle itself) required to drive to the stadium. At this point, though drivers had endured a long wait to make it near the front of the line, we saw several turn their vehicles around, perhaps to use the Metro station’s park-and-ride lot and walk to the game with transit riders. 

Park wherever you want, 5 minutes before gametime! (Photo by me)

The match between two high-profile European sides that rarely play in DC drew a near-capacity crowd of over 70,000, but the parking lot was largely empty. Nevertheless, once we passed the perimeter of the stadium’s parking lot, rent-a-cops lined the walkway with hand-held stop-go signs, regularly forcing as many as 50 pedestrians to halt to let one or two cars pass.

Pedestrians stroll through the portion of FedEx Field's parking lot nearest the stadium, 15 minutes before kickoff (photo by me)

Perhaps the most desolate area of the lot: the section closest to the stadium’s entrance, which hardly any cars appeared to use. I thought door-to-door transportation and minimal walking were among the auto industry’s primary selling points for their product? 

Is the sun setting on the era of driving to sporting events? (Photo by me)

After the game, the return walk to the Metro station was pretty similar, though as usual the sudden departure of large numbers of fans from the stadium made things more crowded than their more gradual arrival. We once again moved faster than car traffic most of the way. Pedestrians overflowed across the crime scene tape into the street; occasionally people ducked under the tape and crammed onto the sidewalk in response to police orders, only to spill over again once out of the officer’s line of vision.

As we walked, my friend expressed concern that the large crowd would overwhelm the Metro and cause us an extended wait. But transit’s incredible efficiency quickly alleviated her fears; not only did we get on an 8-car train that arrived to the station just a couple minutes after we did, but by moving to the far end of the platform we easily got seats. 

***

FedEx Field's upper concourse offers some pretty striking views. That's Baltimore's skyline in the distance. Just ignore the asphalt in the foreground. (Photo by me)

We did not take the mode of transportation FedEx Field was designed for, but our gameday experience, despite paling in comparison to those of the DC area’s other professional sports venues, was far better than that of fans who drove. While it was unfortunate that there’s nothing to do near the stadium, before and after the game we had a great time in the city’s Eastern Market neighborhood, located just six stops (plus the walk) away.

Is there an allure to driving to games that I don’t understand? Is paying $50 + car ownership costs and sitting in traffic just to drag a grill to the stadium, stand in asphalt-amplified heat, and cook mediocre burgers and hot dogs with a small group preferable to hanging out in a restaurant, bar, or public space, bonding with fellow fans?

The Citi Open final between World No. 3 Alexander Zverev and young upstart Alex de Minaur, at DC's Rock Creek Park Tennis Center on August 5, 2018. Rock Creek Park's lush forest beats FedEx Field's hot asphalt. (Photo by me)

Personally, I’ll take the experience I had attending the final of the Citi Open tennis tournament on Sunday over that of FedEx Field. I walked through Rock Creek Park (a trail closure-free section!) to the stadium, then after the match took a pleasant Capital Bikeshare ride up to Silver Spring’s Denizens Brewing. I'll also take the Cal Bears gameday environment which, despite a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)-to-football stadium walk that’s arguably more strenuous than Metro-to-FedEx, is preferable due to the diverse Berkeley attractions to enjoy on the way. 

It seems many DC sports fans feel as I do. While our city’s other pro sports teams enjoy immense year-round popularity, the Redskins, who only host eight games per season, had to lie for years about demand for season tickets and in recent years have removed close to 10,000 FedEx Field seats that they couldn’t fill. 

Fuel-efficient or not, a car is a car

This Tesla Model 3's electric motor failed to prevent the car from crashing into a pole and taking major damage (photo courtesy of Electrek)

This week, the Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a Trump Administration-backed joint plan to relax fuel-efficiency standards for motor vehicles, rolling back Barack Obama’s 2012 proposal to double new cars’ average gas mileage by 2025. One of the administration’s primary justifications for the rollback: better gas mileage would incentivize more driving, and in turn, more car crash deaths.

The proposal has mortified much of the public for obvious reasons, and amid ensuing national pushback experts have largely debunked the traffic safety metrics DOT and EPA cited.

But even before Donald Trump took office, fuel-efficient cars were never going to fix American transportation. The reason is simple: no one – not Trump, not Obama, not even Berkeley’s most radical tree-sitters – can change that even the most environmentally-friendly cars are…well, cars.

Thus, this week’s announcement from DOT has no effect on our fight for more efficient, reliable, and affordable transportation. By promoting better mobility, rather than asking people to make sacrifices, we can do a lot to benefit the environment.

Like all cars, fuel-efficient vehicles let people down. And if you buy one, you’re funding opposition to the multimodal improvements we need.

Tesla Model 3s, Chevy Bolts, and Toyota Priuses may not make driving more dangerous. But they also fail to make it any safer, crashing into each other, cyclists, and pedestrians just as Suburbans and F-150s do. Fuel-efficient vehicles get stuck in traffic, induce stress on their occupants, block bike lanes and crosswalks, traverse highways that ruined once-vibrant urban neighborhoods, and are stored in massive, expensive parking lots.

Some auto industry executives do favor fuel-efficient vehicles, but this doesn’t make them any less of an obstacle to multimodal transportation improvements. For example, Elon Musk, CEO of electric car company Tesla, is a member of the transit-is-crime-ridden cult and has openly tried to undermine California’s under-construction high speed rail line. Musk went so far as to say buses and trains are infested with serial killers (never mind that cars have been the weapon of choice in many recent mass murders), then called Jarrett Walker – a leading force for better mobility today – an “idiot”.

Multimodal transportation is better transportation

Multimodal options such as transit, cycling, and walking help reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, advocates wishing to better these options often cite their environmental benefits, just as backers of fuel-efficient vehicles do for their mode of choice.

Other important environmental efforts, from plastic bag bans to water conservation campaigns, often ask people and corporations to make small sacrifices to further a greater public good. Of course, many people selfishly don’t want to do their part, fierce opposition arises, and all too often – as the DOT-EPA proposal demonstrates – the good guys lose.

Fortunately, we don’t have to ask anyone to sacrifice for the environment, because we already offer better transportation and a better quality of life than the auto and oil industry is capable of providing. It’s been more than 7 years since I first embraced multimodal options, and I’m far better off for it. Call me selfish if you’d like, but I choose to ride trains and buses primarily for my own benefit.

***

Some additional notes on this week’s events...

Autonomous vehicles will fix everything…when it’s politically convenient, apparently

Autonomous vehicles have become one of the primary weapons in the auto and oil lobby's continuing war on multimodal mobility. We’re told that these vehicles will eliminate the lion’s share of car crashes and make traffic congestion a thing of the past, rendering options like transit unnecessary.

But the pro-car, anti-transit administration’s 1217-page proposal, which (as mentioned earlier) hinges largely on the very traffic safety concerns self-driving vehicles are supposed to address, first uses the word “autonomous” on p.423. Text on this page describes driverless capabilities as an example of an emerging technology for which “effectiveness against fatalities and the pace of their adoption is highly uncertain”. The word is not used again until a pp.1093-1095 summary of possible incentive programs that could encourage vehicle manufacturers to develop autonomous technology.

The auto industry could voluntarily produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. They won’t.

The Trump Administration is not forcing the auto industry to produce less fuel-efficient cars than the previous standards would have required. However, in contrast to those of us on the multimodal side of transportation, who simply want to provide people the best product we can, car companies are out solely to maximize profit.

Media coverage of the regulatory rollback has highlighted concerns the auto industry has raised regarding the changes, presenting them as part of the public’s powerful backlash to the proposal. But the concerns industry stakeholders have raised appear unrelated to the obvious environmental and ethical concerns – rather, they’re worried that if courts rule in favor of states wishing to maintain their own, stricter fuel-efficiency standards, they’ll face an inconsistent patchwork of regulations, resulting in manufacturing challenges. They could solve this problem by simply producing all of their vehicles to the standards of the strictest state (maintaining national manufacturing consistency), but they don’t seem to consider this a possibility.