alhedges

Marissa Mayer is not a baby boomer; she's not even 40.

gerv 

What's that ringing in my ear? I was worried I was getting deaf

A lot of that fancy electronics is likely to go the way of the do-do when the Chinese get sick of making the stuff at slave wages. Then an iPhone with iTunes will cost $2,000 and a lot of people will discovering whistling as a cheap alternative.

350htrr

I was just thinking something like that... The telephone, such a useful device and now texting has come along and wham, a 50 year step backwards as far as communicating to my way of thinking...

Roody

A lot will go away but some will stay. We have to wait and see. Predictions are fun, but whatever happens, we'll be surprised. And a smart phone already costs a consumer close to $2,000 if you include the monthly service charges, and consider that the provider's marginal cost for that service is very close to $0.00.

Newspaperguy

We already have transportation technologies which could replace cars. Walking, cycling and transit are three which come to mind. Some communities are looking at ways to allow golf carts or similar vehicles on the roads, perhaps in the bike lanes. None of this is a huge technological advancement. It is already here.

The biggest part is still missing, and that is the design of our towns and cities. Build a town with a compact downtown area and with plenty of apartment units or small-lot homes nearby and walking or cycling no longer seem like inconvenient forms of transportation for the majority of the population. Keep the development off the highways, which are best to connect one community with another.

Before anyone says this is not possible, I have seen some communities in North America where walking is convenient, at least in the neighbourhoods surrounding the city centre. Keeping this walkable structure is more difficult since there are constantly pressures by developers to set up large shopping or residential developments in outlying areas, where land is cheaper. City planning is a local government issue, so it is important to speak up at public hearings on developments and it is important to run for positions on town councils and local governments, in order to bring car-free and car-light concerns to the table. Also, a lot of communities will have city-appointed advisory committees on these and other issues. When there is a call for nominees to these committees, put your name forward. And for those who own or manage businesses, consider becoming a part of the Chamber of Commerce, which can act as a voice for a lot of development concerns.

Unless car-free and car-light visionaries speak up, we will continue to have a structure which favours car use.

cycleobsidian

Great post.

Ferrous Bueller

Newspaperguy for Prime Minister!

Roody

streets for people, not robots! I don't know about Canada, but in a few of the states the Complete Streets movement is spreading fast. The idea is to get your own local municipality to commit to a plan that will eventually make streets that are friendlier to people on foot, bikes, wheelchairs, etc. This is a good group to contact if you want to start some action in your own community.

Like you say, it's easy and even kind of fun to start going to these planning meetings and, if you feel comfortable, stand up in the public comment section and tell 'em what you think. Also, more and more planners are holding actual design meetings right in the neighborhoods that are affected by new city plans. These meetings are called charrettes, and they get public input directly to the engineers who are designing the project.

wolfchild

How about closing "certain roads" to cars for just 1 day per week on the weekends(sundays) ??. To get people thinking about alternative forms of transportation such as cycling and walking ?? Life is so much of a rush during working weekdays , if people could just slow down a little bit once a week and use bikes and walking to get around. Road closures already happen in my area about 2-3 times per year for charity marathons and other special events I was thinking about closing certain roads to vehicles more often, to encourage people to leave their cars at home. (There would still be a special allowence for emergency vehicles if neccessary)... It's just an idea, maybe I am pipe dreaming.

Roody

Actually this is a common event in some cities. It's often called Carfree Sunday or Ciclovia.

bhtooefr

Well, there's an upper bound to labor costs - if they get high enough, automation makes sense, and automation's labor costs have very little change with wages.

And, US production is quite a bit cheaper than that. Mind you, you could see iPhones become $1000ish unsubsidized, given that they're already $850 unsubsidized for an iPhone 5 64 GiB, but not $2000.

cooker

I've thought of that as well, and if it had graduated speed lanes like a freeway (step to the left to get on a faster belt) it might end up moving pretty quickly. Perhaps you could rig up moving posts or overhead cables with straps for people to hold lnto, or even seats. Or, I'm thinking this up as I go, take the trains and tracks out of the subway tunnel and put in long, wide treadways as in airports. There could be two, side by side, a through lane that doesn't stop in each station, and a milk run lane that does, with occasional breaks where you can "change lanes".

cooker

That article sets up a bit of a straw man, that overcrowded megacities with massive slums and traffic congestion are somehow a liberal ideal. He argues for smaller cities with shorter commutes and restored naturalised areas. That would be fine. The current problem in North America is not a lack of small cities with nearby access to both nature and jobs, it's an excess of sprawling suburbs with long commutes and where nature is ploughed over for freeways and malls.

cooker

Apparently you've never been to the intersection of Hwys 410, 401 and 403, or taken the Bloor-Danforth subway.

gerv 

Forbes? Straw man argument? Never happen.

There are many problem with mega-cities, but the reason they are mega is because what they offered was at least a bit better than the alternative.

Arguing that we should radically modify the structure of our cities (creating smaller cities... whatever...) is basically utopian. And IMHO basically a waste of time discussing.

Unfortunately, for most people and the cities they live in, we have to deal with the hand we've been dealt.

Artkansas 

She is wise beyond her years in this respect and she is not alone. At Pixar, Steve Jobs had all the bathrooms put in a single location to enforce their employees mingleing and bumping into each other. I know from experience that when you actually work with people, one fellow can mumble to himself "Uh oh." and the rest of the department will realize that something major has happened. Long-distance communication can never equal that. If you are doing a task that is isolated or needs to be done remotely from the core of people, then telecommuting makes sense. But on the whole working together is like a lively urban core, and telecommuting is like being in the suburbs. But for keeping everyone on the same page, there's nothing like being in one place. Good call Ms. Mayer.

wolfchild

Actually I have to cross Hwys 401/403 every single day. None of those intersections have any special tubes for cyclists or peds which would allow them to avoid crossing hwy exits. I wish they did have some kind of a tunnel because it's very dangerous to cross them. The only place in mississauga that has a tunnel for cyclists and peds is at the Hurontario/Qew.

Roody

You're right for the time being. But futurists such as Vernor Vinge foresee that in the not too distant future, a teleconference, with participants in different continents, will be indistinguishable from a physical meeting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbows_End

Artkansas 

I used to work for a company whose product was virtual meeting spaces, with 3D avatars, virtual meeting rooms and everything and I agree with you regards to meetings. But that's much different than the dynamics working with a bunch of people, day in day out. It's two different dynamics. If everyone is networked all of the time it might be different, but you need the constant contact.

cooker

My point was that the notion of building elevated infrastructure for bikes doesn't seem so far fetched when you see how much elevated infrastructure we build for other modes of transport. If cyclists become numerous enough and vocal enough that politicians and/or businesses decide to cater to us, we can have whatever we want.


PS. How do you cross?

Newspaperguy

The grid is pretty much set, but what is done within that grid is constantly evolving. A local government can set the maximum heights of buildings, which in turn determines whether growth is upward or outward. Decisions on parking spaces and whether parking is free or metered will also affect how people get around in the core. The presence or absence of bike lanes, bike racks, sidewalks and transit service will also have a bearing on one's choice of transportation. Zoning restrictions affect whether a suburb is a series of bedrooms or a neighbourhood with at least some services for its residents. None of those things require a modification of the existing structure of a city, but all will affect future development.

Roody

Even the grid itself can change. In many North American cities, a big change was when the interstate highways were constructed. The new expressways tore apart communities and made travel more difficult for cyclists and walkers. They also did as much as anything to encourage the suburban sprawl we're all so fond of.

And now we're hearing that in a few cases these urban freeways will be decommissioned because they no longer serve their purpose.

wolfchild

Most of the time I use sidewalks when crossing HWY's 401/403 exits ,overpasses or underpasses.

cooker

The pro-sprawl forces will argue that people have a right to drive to big box stores if they want - they "vote with their wheels" so to speak. The counter argument is that public as a whole end up paying to make that happen, by providing roads to those sites and perhaps through incentives given to developers and retailers like reduced property taxes, not to mention all kinds of hidden costs of car-dependency, so advocates and "visionaries" have to be well armed with that kind of information.

kmv2

but it was allowed under her and its the only one we hear about in the news. ..and I suppose she's a big deal in the Yahoo! world.

However, I was referring more to the workforce who feels they need to commute X hours a day to sit in a cube for 8 hours a day. I feel like younger people realize the futility in this and will be the ones to formally or informally challenge the notion of 'coming into the office' every day. That's just my hunch and has no actual evidence behind it.

And also yes not everyone works in an office, but what if it was even 10% or 15% of the people going to work every day.
I live in a government town, approximately 10% of our population is employed by the federal government. They sometimes have different holidays from the rest of the 9-5 workforce, and you definitely notice a significant reduction in commuter traffic on the days they have holidays and we don't.