L.A. Artist Contemplates Future Traffic Flow, With Hot Wheels 118
John3 writes "American artist Chris Burden is finishing up his latest work titled Metropolis II for display this fall in Los Angeles. There's a fascinating five minute documentary on YouTube about his miniature city and the traffic that flows through it. He comments 'The idea that a car runs free, those days are about to close.' Whether you agree or disagree, he certainly has built one of the coolest Hot Wheels layouts I've ever seen."
"About to close"? (Score:2)
'The idea that a car runs free, those days are about to close.'
"About to close"? Laugh at mental picture of hordes of people trapped in long rush hours jams on a at least twice a day basis for years feeling like their cars has been running free all that time.
Re: (Score:1)
'The idea that a car runs free, those days are about to close.'
Does anyone have a clue what the hell he means by this quote?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
'The idea that a car runs free, those days are about to close.'
Does anyone have a clue what the hell he means by this quote?
Guessing he means the days of us manually driving our cars is almost over, that they'll be self-driving like the google car that crashed the other day [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
As long as the destination you tell it is on it's list of destinations. Meaning, a parking garage at a highrise apartment building along a rapid transit corridor, the valet drop-off point for a gated estate, one of the approved shopping malls, etc.
People like me who live 'out in the wild' as far as most GPS Navigation Maps in cars are concerned will just have to wing it somehow.
Re: (Score:3)
google car that crashed the other day
A person was driving that when it crashed. No robot apocalypse here, move along.
Re: (Score:2)
He means that the days of free-range cars are going to end due to factory-farmed cars being so much cheaper.
*sad panda*
Re: (Score:2)
>> 'The idea that a car runs free, those days are about to close.'
> Does anyone have a clue what the hell he means by this quote?
In means in about a ~100 years, a human won't have the freedom to drive their car -- they will delegate the safety of driving and managing traffic density to an automated vehicle. You will put in their destination and dedicated roads that will ONLY accept computer-controlled cars will minimize the time needed to travel to your destination.
Think about it -- every car is P2
Re: (Score:3)
Great pipe dream.
What will really happen, however, is that any time someone in charge wants to be re-elected, or want funding for something he/she will make the roads run slower(though selective false info, etc) until people vote to fix it.
On top of that, someone will figure out how to get priority for their cars, and that will further mess things up. And that's on top of the kids who will mess things up *just* to cause problems.
Sorry, but any system that's computer controlled can be exploited, either by th
well main roads can be auto drive but rural and ma (Score:2)
well main roads can be auto drive but rural and maybe parking lot's can be manual.
The start of any kind of auto drive system will be auto drive road ways and it will take time to get rid of the old cars. Also trucks may need there own system as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup -- we have the technology -- just not the budget it seems.
liabilities and laws are much bigger thing to deal (Score:2)
liabilities and laws are much bigger things to deal with.
To make it sort the 2 big things are
*Who is at fault
*Who will do the time if some dies.
Re: (Score:2)
In means in about a ~100 years, a human won't have the freedom to drive their car -- they will delegate the safety of driving and managing traffic density to an automated vehicle. You will put in their destination and dedicated roads that will ONLY accept computer-controlled cars will minimize the time needed to travel to your destination.
That sounds great, can't happen soon enough. I really enjoy driving, so as soon as the bulk of the ovine plodders are bimbling along automated guided motorways in only a
Re: (Score:1)
There's nothing about driving on a motorway/interstate highway that's the least bit aimed at the enthusiast. Automate those (mainly to stop the morons from cutting across 3 lanes to their exit at the last minute) to give all vehicles on them a higher average speed, and save the fun side roads for us fun-loving bikers and drivers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But he has run hundreds of unpowered toy cars downhill along pre-set non-intersecting routes - don't you see how that makes him an expert on traffic flow?
Re:"About to close"? (Score:4, Insightful)
And Mel Gibson is an expert on Christ because he made one crappy film about him.
Welcome to America, where it doesn't take actual knowledge to become an expert on any given subject.
All it takes is exposure.
Re: (Score:1)
"About to close"? Laugh at mental picture of hordes of people trapped in long rush hours jams on a at least twice a day basis for years feeling like their cars has been running free all that time.
I blame the Tea Party. Oh, wait, wrong article.
Annoying closeups (Score:5, Informative)
For a few seconds of a full view on the quite impressive thing, jump to about 4:30 [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think cars are going to stop running on the road. I think more likely we'll switch to electric cars. I know my car has 110,000 miles on it, and I want to see how far I go before I buy an electric car. Once I get an electric car, I'll buy some land, and a solar array so I'll pay next to nothing to drive.
Re: (Score:3)
Switching power sources will help polution and eventually cost, but not congestion. There's a limit on the density achievable by big vehicles moving independently. That said, the US is not one of the more dense nations around and won't be anytime soon (our own population growth has now shifted to places like Texas that are less overcrowded) so I would be surprised if it isn't China that takes the lead in this
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to see smart car technology really starting to get widespread. Cars that sync with each other based on destination and form self-driven chains to minimize gas consumption and space usage. That'd be not just really cool, also very practical. Of course, public transport is the obvious low tech solution that would make sense if so many Americans weren't ideologically against it...
Re: (Score:2)
/. has previously covered the idea of "road trains", which basically describe what you're talking about. They're basically just cars that enter and exit independently, but operate as a unit while they are on the highway, enabling them to move much more smoothly and with much less space between them. My bet is that we'll start seeing it before too much longer (10-15 years*), with HOV lanes (or some equivalent) becoming restricted for cars of this sort. Eventually more and more highway lanes will become restr
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I agree. I also think the US will be some 10-15 years behind China in things like these. Or longer.
Re: (Score:1)
But the annoying close ups don't convey just how magnificent it really is. When I finally reached the wide view I was really surprised at the size of it, and I wanted to see it for myself in real life, much more than I got from the close ups. We need a sense of scale, don't we?
And why does every shot of anything these days have to come from a moving camera? Are our attention spans REALLY so poor now that we would mentally drift away if we were presented with a static shot (but still containing motion)?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the artist's idea is that in the future we will have fully separate lanes on major roadways with cars driving automatically at really high velocities. With fully separate lanes an automatic car need only worry about not hitting the car ahead of them, since the car would be unable to leave the lane. So no worrying about the car in the next lane cutting you off, etc.
Obviously in practice the there would be the on and off ramps, and periodic opportunities to change lanes, but even so, the cars would ba
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What he is actually saying is,"Cars will run on tracks?" Sure that is reasonable. I've been thinking that for a while. Make new cars able to run on a rail system or guide by wire, and make the HOV lane into this track. If you have a car that runs on it, that is cool, if not, stay in normal lanes. If widespread adoption of a track car catches on, make more lanes dedicated towards it
The prob
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I could be wrong, but the impression I got from the video was that the artist wasn't trying to produce a [realistic] model of traffic flow (future, present, or past) at all. I think people get confused when he makes the comment about the cars' going 230 miles per hour and how that gives him 'hope for the future.' I don't think that's equivalent to saying 'this is (my idea of) the traffic flow of the future.'
A couple of quotes from the artist in the video I think show otherwise:
"the idea that the car runs free. Those days are about to close. So it's a little bit like making a model of New York city at the turn of the last century and your modeling horse buggies everywhere and then the automobile is about to arrive. So something else is about to arrive."
So he's making a 'model' of a
Re: (Score:2)
too bad i got sick of the artsy focus and just quit watching before I read this comment. I may go back and try again, after the headache that it caused has left me.
This will teach me to never again read any links from the summary, just jump straight into the comments.
Thank you (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the annoying close-ups are to help offset the annoying lack of detail in the overview.
Perspective in the video (Score:1)
It's hard to see the scale of the project since the video is presented as 'artsy'. The best view of it is at 4:32-4:52 where you see an overlook of the whole thing.
presented mostly "out of focus" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid it was almost certainly deliberate - that's why so many people are flocking to full-frame sensor DSLRs for affordable video. It's a very popular look.
Re: (Score:2)
this guy is one sick person.
Future? Bah (Score:1)
Not in America. (Score:1, Troll)
Since it doesn't serve the ultra-rich, the right wing won't support it, no matter how much it might possibly help everyone.
As for the left? They've long since given up doing anything big and useful, and have mostly turned into a reactionary set of frightened groups, who couldn't even begin to imagine doing something like Roosevelt did, losing all the progress they made, chunk by chunk, weeping all the while, but not actually doing anything meaningful enough to save the things they care about.
We're too busy
Re: (Score:2)
Since it doesn't serve the ultra-rich, the right wing won't support it, no matter how much it might possibly help everyone.
As for the left? They've long since given up doing anything big and useful....
Ryan Fenton
I know you're trolling, but after what happened this week would you really want to give the government control of our cars? I like the idea of being able to jump in my car and drive around regardless of whether or not Congress balances the next budget, don't you? Why would anyone want to give more control to the gov't after seeing how bad they just screwed up? Reminds me of a quote:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfill it" -- George Santayana [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? Back in the day, a government of the people managed to do a very good job creating the highway system, the internet, NASA, and overseeing the creation of modern science. Smart people CAN be used in the creation of such things - as long as "equal time" isn't always given to people with a direct interesting in sabotaging them at every step.
Government CAN work, and can do things otherwise impossible - if so many in power weren't so busy trying to hack it all apart at every opportunity.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2)
* We should help the poor lift themselves out of poverty.
* We should find the best experts in the world to figure out how to do it. Be scientific about it.
It gives you a different idea of how things can be. It's not based on envy or even hurting the rich, it's about helping people. It's not surprising that people elected him, because most people will try to h
Re: (Score:2)
some of it is positively inspiring
Too bad it didn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On a broader scale, there's really not much we can do - immigrants have been arriving in this country, penniless and not speaking the language, for centuries. The vast majority of them have nonetheless been wildly successful. The efforts to inculcate middle-class values in the underclass have been incredibly numerous, but all eventually have to face the reality that there are some people who are just not intelligent enough to put it all together in the
Re: (Score:2)
Blacktop crumbles pretty quickly without upkeep, and pretty much only exists in most places because somebody eminent-domained their way through with state power and then paved with public money.
Assorted mark-of-the-beast fantasies of having vehicles directly controlled by the Master
Re: (Score:2)
Since it doesn't serve the ultra-rich, the right wing won't support it, no matter how much it might possibly help everyone.
Would it require massive public spending?
Would it increase private spending on cars?
If answer is yes to just one of these questions, who do you think will reap the profits?
Re: (Score:1)
Why would the "right-wing" support the ultra-rich if they're not ultra-rich themselves? It makes no sense.
I'm not American, but surely the right-wing (as you put it) merely wants to work, use the money to provide for themselves and live and let live.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the USA one of the countries that spend the most money in scientific research?
In any case, the difference in funding between what I've seen in the US and what I've seen in Europe is impressive.
Humans Weren't Meant to Live this Way (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are natural, ergo anything they make is natural.
Unless you're arguing that humans aren't evolved from any other species, or humans were planted on Earth from another planet.
I strip away the old debris... (Score:1)
...That hides a shining car!
A brilliant red Barchetta,
From a better vanished time.
I fire up the willing engine!
Responding with a roar!
Tires spitting gravel,
I commit my weekly crime!
Sing it with me now!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAvQSkK8Z8U [youtube.com]
This dude loves Rush. I love Rush.
It's all coming together.
Efficient pricing makes congestion obsolete (Score:2)
Given that traffic congestion is a type of shortage (a shortage of available space on a road at a given time of day), and that a shortage happens when when the price of an item is set below the going rate determined by supply and demand [wikipedia.org], the solution is made obvious: raise the price of freeway access just high enough to eliminate the traffic congestion, but no higher. Then lower the toll when demand is low, to give people the ability to economize. Variable tolls permanently eliminates any need to expand the
Re: (Score:1)
Face it, the free market will not work in today's society. Why? Well simple, greed. Why bother competing on price when you can just have a un-written agreement with all the major players in the field to price your products and services the same? Why bother competing on value when you can just produce a crap product (and have noone even know the difference - eg. apples from China that are about as nutritious as a bit of cardboard).
Why price the tolls on the highways according to market when you can make
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to make more money, build fewer lanes. Then you can price the tolls according to the market and also make more money.
If the freeway lanes are nearly full because you've correctly priced them, then you can hardly blame the tolls if people are also takin
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the problems with that philosophy.
#1, if everything is a toll road in congested areas, the areas that have higher tolls between the living area and the working area will be depressed in value, making it more likely that low-income people will live there instead, meaning they're more likely to pay high tolls.
#2, job availability won't be spread out to cheat the tolls, so the crappiest jobs will still most likely run you right into peak toll time. And for a lot of jobs, you can't just say, "oh, I'm goi
Re: (Score:2)
tax brackets screw over individuals that get just on the wrong side of the bracket, while giving individuals on the right side of the bracket an unfair advantage
Given that only income that falls into the range of a given bracket is taxed at that bracket's rate, how is that so? A person $1 below the top of a bracket does pay less in taxes than a person $1 above the bottom of the next bracket up, that's true, but the difference, all else being equal, would only be a few cents.
I suppose that we have the spare computing resources to calculate these things on a curve now without it being laborious, but it hardly seems like one of the major problems with our tax policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not let the free market decide what properties in sprawling suburbs far from work centers is worth?
Of course it does. Look at a demand curve [wikipedia.org]. As price rises, demand falls, so if the price is high enough, demand falls to the leve
Re: (Score:2)
Commuters from suburbs impose significant costs when they drive into the city. For instance, traffic planners [wired.com] have determined that the maginal cost of the average person deciding to drive into the Central Business District of Manhattan costs New York City residents $128.
What's absurd is the concept that people whose crappy, selfish lifestyle decisions impose insane costs upon others shouldn't have those costs brought to bear upon them instead. Rising gas prices have barely encouraged people to stop purchasi
Re: (Score:2)
Bloomberg wanted to charge tolls to drive in NY during congested time periods...apparently London does something like this. [wikimedia.org]
Too may externalities. (Score:2)
This won't work because people don't make their own schedules - their boss does. Since the ones making the decision isn't the one impacted by the fee they will rarely take it into consideration as part of the decision. Likewise, people flying in for business meeting aren't going to plan their trip around the cost of tolls, if they even know it varies.
The express lanes are an economic plus because it lets impatient people with money subsidize the cost of the road for everyone else. This doesn't extend to you
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, people make their own schedules in that they choose who to work for. Bosses will have to be flexible with their schedules or pay their employees more, or risk losing employees.
And they also exist even when consumers don't have a choice. Perfect competiton [wikipedia.org] isn't required.
Yes, _that_ Chris Burden (Score:1)
Shut it down! Quickly! (Score:1)
Considering recent theories about how small underpowered cars are really dangerous, this exhibit should be immediately destroyed to stop the public seeing these tiny unpowered little cars whizzing around in perfect harmony. It'll never happen! In the real world, thousands of leprechauns would be killed under the wheels of SUVs, 18-wheelers, Winnebagos and Segways the very second they drove onto the public roads in these things! Ban the tiny cars! BAN THEM!
Artists and future. (Score:2)
To me it seems more like that past.
Re:This is bad. As if downing the 405 wasn't enoug (Score:4, Insightful)
Ted Kazinski, is that you? I didn't think you had internet access! What you say makes complete and utter sense. I wish I could say it so clearly. Big fan of your writing!
Re: (Score:1)
Better the internet than the postal system.
Re:This is bad. As if downing the 405 wasn't enoug (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is a lack of rapid transit. Cars alone cannot deal with the traffic of a large, dense city.
But of course, American's would never do something as sensible as vote to build rapid, socialist, transit, when highly subsidised roads, gas, etc.. are so free market.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is a lack of rapid transit. Cars alone cannot deal with the traffic of a large, dense city.
But of course, American's would never do something as sensible as vote to build rapid, socialist, transit, when highly subsidised roads, gas, etc.. are so free market.
I was over in California in April/May this year for a holiday and it amazed me just how fragmented and confusing the public transportation was. San Francisco was okay (even if BART was ear-splittingly loud) but LA was atrocious. Different fare structures for just about everything, seemingly no attempt whatsoever to match bus and "train" services and as often as not, two or three separate operators at the edge of coverage zones.
I still think Melbourne's public transport system isn't that great - it's fairl
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
there's also a socio-economic problem in that most middle class people in LA (my family included) are unwilling to use mass transit, viewing it as low-class or not allowing for enough personal freedom.
Visited LA. Live in a different major city.
If I'm trying to get to work, there IS NOT a valid bus or train line to get me there. And I live 10 miles from my workplace right down one of the main freeways.
If I'm trying to get to something on the other side of the city, likewise. It'd take me 4 hours.
Plus, I have
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing that says mass transit needs to be socialized... but non-socialized mass transit has pretty much failed or is failing.
People want privacy and freedom. They don't want to be driven to the same spot as everyone else and dropped off in some cattle call.
The last time I rode on the "L" in Chicago they had hard plastic seats because it's too much of a pain to clean piss and paint off nicer seats. I decided at that point that I'd never ride the train again.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing that says mass transit needs to be socialized... but non-socialized mass transit has pretty much failed or is failing.
I think Tokyo has private railway lines and services. I've not been, but I've read that this is inconvenient for some people -- there isn't sufficient integration.
Many towns in England have privately run buses -- the local government sets the routes and service frequency, but the company has some influence on the fares. I don't think anyone except the shareholders of the transport companies think this is a good idea.
Here in London, the government company (TfL) decide on the route, frequency, fares and vehi
Some cities OK, but other cities and intercity bad (Score:2)
Some cities do have fairly effective local mass transit systems. For instance, visiting Boston and Chicago provided a breath of fresh air compared to the mediocre bus system in my hometown. (I've heard good things about the NYC subway system, but I've never been to the Big Apple for any length of time.)
By the way, one characteristic of a local mass transit system would be how well it supports going to/from the suburbs.
However, the local network in some cities is a problem, and the US intercity rail system .
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they can - just keep on building more and more new road until there is no land between the roads for people to do unimportant things like living and running businesses on. At that point, you've reached maximum density and there is nothing more to do but to spread laterally.
Anyone who tells you differently is a liar. And no, I don't believe in Tokyo. Or Germany.
Sgd. for and on behalf of the GGGA (Global Gas Guzzler's Alliance), not t
Blame the greenies (Score:2, Insightful)
It has the environmentalists' dream for years now for high-density living with mostly public transportation. What they call sprawl and fight tooth and nail against is what most of us call personal space, a yard for children, and a nice house. They would rather cram everybody in the smallest area possible and hope we all convert to riding buses because the traffic congestion is so bad. Urban planning classes pump out more and more people with this same view every year, so I can only imagine it getting worse.
Re: (Score:3)
It'd be hard to claim that L.A.'s highway system is the result of "greenies"; it's just about the most generous possible highway system you could imagine. In L.A., unlike in most cities, if I miss my freeway exit, I take the next freeway, which comes up in 5-15 miles, instead of bothering to figure out how to turn around. Oh, and if I miss that, I take the freeway after that. Because in L.A., there are so many freeways that they're like arterial streets in other cities.
I'm not sure how many more freeways L.
a badly-implemented idea doesn't make the idea bad (Score:2)
I don't think you can prove the idea bad because of bad (terrible) implementation.
Allowing density to increase without allowing space for increased transit is a recipe for disaster - and it's what's happened here in Seattle. Once all available space is already built on, the acquisition costs to expand highways or light rail, or anything - skyrocket to the point of a political inability to get anything funded.
You have to put the big rocks in first [dailyblogtips.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on where you dig and how deep. They're actually planning on digging a deep-bore tunnel underneath downtown Seattle, and have already begun digging tunnels in other parts of the city. The deep bore one downtown may be cancelled, but only due to stupid city leaders and stupid citizens. The 'underground' city in Seattle isn't that deep, but it is a pretty cool tour (especially the very humorous (and true!) history lecture at the start of the tour).
Re:Blame the greenies (Score:4, Interesting)
American cities have come a long way in the last decade and will keep moving back towards the good this coming decade. Many are growing again, and almost all are growing in their downtown cores. Even downtown Detroit has a housing shortage. Anyway, I think you'd be surprised how fantastic some cities are and just how far they've come. They're not as bad as you think.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's buying all that shit from China? Oh yeah, the Christians. And everyone else. Guess who's strip-mining by proxy?
Re: (Score:2)
Acceding for the moment that what you claim for US cities is correct, the fact that there are other places on the planet where it does not apply seems to indicate that either urban planners have already solved the problem, or, more likely, that it's not primarily an issue of urban planning.
Re: (Score:3)
If we all spread out, take over a bunch of space, and clear it for our use, then we will leave nothing else but residential areas. My personal vision of hell is neverending suburbia punctuated by refineries and strip malls... you know, kind of like in Snow Crash. And that is precisely what you are advocating.
Cities are more efficient places for people to live (if their food is not produced too far away) and we need people to live in them if we are going to have massive populations needed for modern society.