Travis In Austin

In terms of federal funds we are spending a vast majority of funds on maintenance and repair of existing roads than building new roads, lanes or increasing capacity. Here are rough costs on what roads cost: The following are some examples: Construct a new 2-lane undivided road – about $2-$3 million per mile in rural areas, about $3-5 million in urban areas. Construct a new 4-lane highway — $4-$6 million per mile in rural and suburban areas, $8-$10 million per mile in urban areas. Construct a new 6-lane Interstate highway – about $7 million per mile in rural areas, $11 million or more per mile in urban areas. Mill and resurface a 4-lane road – about $1.25 million per mile. Expand an Interstate Highway from 4 lanes to 6 lanes – about $4 million per mile.

Who, I think the inefficiency I see on a daily basis is that people won't yield, so as they try to move over a lane, they have to slow down because no one will let them in, and it has the effect of slowing down that entire lane for some distance behind. The same is true when entering a freeway during rush hour. There will be a long line of cars entering a highway, they will not space themselves out to makenit easier to merge. So they put up lights to control flow of on ramp that forces drivers to space themselves and I know that helps a great deal. I do agree with your assessment that if the offramps are backed up that starts to back up the exit lane, and then the adjacent lane, because people won't anticipate and move over earlier or don't want to wait, and you have slow moving traffic. However, you put in an HOV and/or AV lane that bypasses DT, you will move that traffic. In the Bay Area there are freeways with six lanes each direction, plus exit only lanes. Two of those lanes are HOV. One for 2 or more, and one for 3 or more. Those lanes fly, the others sit. I think it is going to be a very long time before we have enough AVs to where traffic engineers can start to integrate it all into significant times savings. I think it will be AV lane to make an incentive to get them and at some point there will be enough vehicles that there could begin to be a savings on infrastructure. The true savings will be when they can save by not having to expand or widening a current highway. When it get to the point that an engineer tells a city, county, or state that you can increase flow, at a fraction of the cost of building a new lane, by doing so and so with AV vehicles, designate a lane, or mandating them on that highway, or whatever it is, that is the point where there a fundamental shift to AV usage by Govt and consumers. There is zero savings in infrastructure before then. It will be interesting to see if it moves quicker locally or federally. The test beds seem to be local, like Conta Costa County. However, some states are afraid of technology or are beholden and have done things like trying to outlaw Teslas (Michigan, New Jersey, etc.). My opinion is that there can be a traffic flow improvement with AVs but you have to have a significant number of people using them to get to that point, and to achieve that you need to get the price way down and/or provide incentitives.

Sorry to hear about your situation. I can't add to the advice to remain positive, other than there is no shame in seeing a counselor. Most universities have a student counseling center on campus,for free. There is a reason for that. Where are you attending in St. Louis? Where would you attend in Iowa?

Federal Legislation on autonomus vehicles: SEC. 6052. ESTABLISHMENT AND SCOPE OF PROGRAM. (a) Establishment.-Subject to the provisions of this part, the Secretary shall conduct a program to research, develop, and operationally test intelligent vehicle-highway systems and promote implementation of such systems as a component of the Nation's surface transportation systems. ( Goals.-The goals of the program to be carried out under this part shall include, but not be limited to- (1) the widespread implementation of intelligent vehicle-highway systems to enhance the capacity, efficiency, and safety of the Federal-aid highway system and to serve as an alternative to additional physical capacity of the Federal-aid highway system; (2) the enhancement, through more efficient use of the Federal-aid highway system, of the efforts of the several States to attain air quality goals established pursuant to the Clean Air Act; (3) the enhancement of safe and efficient operation of the Nation's highway systems with a particular emphasis on aspects of systems that will increase safety and identification of aspects of the system that may degrade safety; (4) the development and promotion of intelligent vehicle-highway systems and an intelligent vehicle-highway systems industry in the United States, using authority provided under section 307 of title 23, United States Code; (5) the reduction of societal, economic, and environmental costs associated with traffic congestion; (6) the enhancement of United States industrial and economic competitiveness and productivity by improving the free flow of people and commerce and by establishing a significant United States presence in an emerging field of technology; (7) the development of a technology base for intelligent vehicle-highway systems and the establishment of the capability to perform demonstration experiments, using existing national laboratory capabilities where appropriate; and (8) the facilitation of the transfer of transportation technology from national laboratories to the private sector.

You are correct, it is not NSA that wants to track cars in US. It is DHS, and they have been doing it and they just asked for a ton more money to track vehicles and license plates. Everywhere you go: gun store, liquor store, drug store, horse track, casino, bank, mistress, internist, urologist, etc. Whatever your issue is, whatever priority you may have, it can be intruded upon. If gun rights is your thing, they will know who own guns, ammo, shoots at firing range. Where you bank, get cash, whether you gamble, who you sleep with, when, you medical situation, where you eat, and on and on and on. The 4th Amendment is still there, but we all talk tough about freedom and liberty, and then turn right around and get in the next line the government tells us to get into.

As well as USA Military, as least in our nukes.

Our EMP hardening is a technological marvel, but the technology itself isn't a marvel is it? Shuttle used IBM System/4 Pi. The Orion is using 3 Honeywell built computers based on the RAD 750 chip available since 2002, from the IBM Thinkpad 750. That chip is obsolete, but very reliable. Used by Boeing in modern 747s and then the 787. The EPM hardening drives the cost up to 300K per chip, and is made by British Aerospace. Speed, RAM, memory, all seem to take a back seat to reliable, time tested, technology when it come to aerospace and even Mil-Standard-2169. A large number of our gravity nuclear bombs still use vacuum tubes, one of which controls the radar fuse. From what I saw on C-span and read in Jaynes, a great deal of our military hardening had occurred since 2010, and there have been several acts on Congress to fund that.

Valves in a car, what a novel idea.

I agree, you get that technology implemented, and interconnected, it will transform ground transportation in to something way more efficient. It will require legislation, local, regional, state and federal. That means politics, and that means special interests. Hopefully they don't mess it up too bad.

I've mentioned more than once that there will be a time of confusion and much to be worked out over a few years. As we tend to be reactive rather than proactive it's likely to be pretty chaotic for a while and nothing will operate as efficiently as it might. I understand now that you were speaking of manually driven vehicles. Automated vehicles will always create a gap to for another to merge (unlike Houston drivers who tend to try to cut off a merging care or one trying to change lanes) and there will be no slower vehicle holding things up unless there is a safety issue requiring all vehicles to move more slowly. I was talking to the PAW last night about there being certain old Federal two lane or four lane roads that would make ideal AV-only routes since AV's don't need all the space on freeways or all the complexities required to keep human drivers from hitting each other. AVs could maintain freeway speeds readily on those old roads, many of which are in excellent condition being built "like they used to." And, yes, most of those in the technology say our road system is way overbuilt by AV standards. I happen to "enjoy" a Houston commute that is one of the lightest in the area. However, I note that it is often clusters of vehicles separated by reasonably open areas as nobody is doing anything consistently. If all the vehicles were evenly spaced at the same speed capacity would be much higher. Dave That is the theory of coupling, instead of inconsistent gaps between cars, about one car length between vehicle, moving in synch down the road. I figured they would design some system to allow merging in and out of the lanes. The demo in the 90s was funded by fed govt. to partner with research universities and progam was cut. However, there are now at least 5 "test bed" locations in about 4 states. Who brings up a good point, every commute starts at zero, up to whatever highway speed, and back to zero. The delay is always backed up traffic trying to exit and enter freeways. Thise lights that only allow one vehicle at a time to enter freeway has been more effective then anything I have seen because, as Dave has said, individuals can't seem to regulate themselves for common good. controled freeway access is like the air traffic control model, and ATC is not really that far off base from what they are could achieve with AVs. Where coupling would work is for traffic that wishes to go through city, like Katy freeway, designated lane, right through Houston, or a giant parking lot with light rail or shuttles to downtown. Texas has been using a toll way model, 130 that bypasses Austin, originally 85 mph but now 80, somebody figured out that feral pigs are black and have eyes that don't reflect the lights of headlights. The aftermath of a car traveling at 85 or 90 at night and hitting a 300 lb pig is not a pretty sight. The latest project is adding a lane to the major north/south highway. That additional lane will be a toll road that will charge variable rates, the more conjestiob, the higher the toll.

It was tested, in the 90s, on the Interstate in San Diego County and it is called "platooning" or "coupling." Pictue a string of vehicles connected like a train. They are very closely spaced because they are all equipped with adaptive cruise. They communicated with each other becausr so specially designed lane that was a designated for these autonomous vehicles. There really isn't an efficient speed, there is the speed limit as upper limit and then lower as congestion builds. They don't select a speed together, the lead vehicle sets the speed based on what is ahead of it. If it is clear ahead it goes speed limit, if it has to slow down to let a vehicle in the line, all vehicles slow down at same time belike a train because they are connected. Cars entering into the line will slow it down because space will have to be created for them and then they will all accelerate together. For it to be more efficient than independent traffic they must be able to operate closely spaced so that more vehicles can fit in a given space. The result is you are able to move more traffic together in a given space. It requires connectivity and a system that is standard across brands. It will take longer to develop and implement than individual Autonomous vehicles being commercially available and may require legislation to mandate the means of connectivity and the standard system. A designated lane provides the incentive to purchase a compatable vehicle. However, once the lane becomes overloaded with vehicles the advantage becomes less and less until another lane is added.

Doug Sax with four lathes

Doug Sax interview Mastering Engineer Doug Sax If ever there was a title of “Godfather of Mastering,” Doug Sax has truly earned it as evidenced by the extremely high regard that the industry holds him in. One of the first independent mastering engineers, Doug literally defined the art when he opened his world famous The Mastering Lab in Hollywood in 1967. The Lab has since moved to the quiet peace and beauty of Ojai, California, but the magic that has drawn such major diverse talents as The Who, Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones, The Eagles, Diana Krall, Kenny Rogers, Barbra Streisand, Neil Diamond, Earth, Wind and Fire, Rod Stewart, Jackson Browne, and many, many more, continues to draw. Do you have a philosophy about mastering? Doug Sax: Yes. If it needs nothing, don’t do anything. I think that you’re not doing a service by adding something it doesn’t need. I don’t make the stew, I season it. If the stew needs no seasoning, then that’s what you have to do, because if you add salt when it doesn’t need any, you’ve ruined it. I try to maintain what the engineer did. A lot of times they’re not really in the ballpark due to their monitoring, so I EQ for clarity more than anything. When you first run something down, can you hear the final product in your head? Oh yes, virtually instantly, because for the most part I’m working with music that I know what it’s supposed to sound like. Once in a while I’ll get an album that’s so strange to me because of either the music or what the engineer did, that I have no idea what it’s supposed to sound like and I often will pass on it. I’ll say, “I just don’t hear this. Maybe you should go somewhere where they’re glued into what you’re doing.” For the most part, I’m fortunate to usually work on things that sound pretty good. I work on most of the recordings from great engineers like Bill Schnee, George Massenburg, Ed Cherney and Al Schmitt. These are clients that I’m the one they go to if they have a say in where it’s mastered. Every room has its claim to fame and mine is that I work on more albums nominated for engineering Grammy’s than any other room, and probably by a factor of three or four to the next closest room. How has mastering changed over the years from the time you started until the way it is now? My answer is maybe different than everyone else’s. It hasn’t changed at all! In other words, what you’re doing is finessing what an engineer and artist has created into its best possible form. If an engineer says, “I don’t know what it is, but the vocal always seems to be a little cloudy,” I can go in there and keep his mix the same yet still make the vocal clearer. That’s what I did in 1968 and that’s what I still do. The process is the same and the goal is the same. I don’t master differently for different formats because you essentially make it sound as proper as you can, and then you transfer it to the final medium using the best equipment One of the things that has changed recently is that every client that comes in wants vinyl again. Almost nothing comes into the Lab that doesn’t do vinyl anymore. For one thing, it doesn’t cost that much. For another $1500 you can be doing vinyl, and you’re in a young market as the people buying these turntables are 18 to 25, and that’s proven. If you want to get your album to people that are really listening to the music, that’s the way. It’s also where the people that are going to buy hi-res downloads are coming from as well. Right now we’re mastering a Jackson Browne album and making a CD master, MFIT master, 96k master, 192k master, DSD master and vinyl. That’s 6 different formats. Three years ago we made a CD master and that was it. That’s becoming more and more routine. I think this is all an offshoot from the phonograph record in the home. The fact that someone has to make a commitment to listening to a record and won’t be listening on earbuds but real loudspeakers is a revolution right there. Is it true that you were the first independent mastering engineer? Absolutely. Independent has to be clarified because if you go back to the late ‘60s and before, everything was done in-house. You were signed to a label, you were given an A&R man, and you stayed within the label. If you recorded at Capitol, then you went down to Capitol’s mastering to get your product cut to lacquer. You went to Capitol’s art department and they gave you the artist that designed your cover, and that’s the way it was. It was really at the end of the ‘60s that certain top producers would say, “I love the security, but I would like to work with an artist that’s not on this label. I would like to work with Streisand, but she’s on Columbia.” So they started to break off from the label and really started the process where nobody is tied to one any more. The cry became, “If you sign me, I’ll use the engineer I want and I’ll record and master where I want.” That’s 40 years of hard fought independence, so from the standpoint of an independent that is not aligned with a label, just a specialty room that handles mastering, the answer is yes. I was one of the pioneers when there was no independent business. We opened up our doors in December 27 of 1967 and by ’71 or ’72, you couldn’t get into the place because we were so busy. By ’72 we were doing 20 percent of the top 100 chart and there weren’t a lot of competitors. There was Artisan in LA, and Sterling and maybe Master Disk just starting in New York, and that was it. Now there seems to be a thousand because the reality is that it’s very easy for someone to go into this business now, or for the artist or engineer do it yourself. You can get a workstation with all the bells and whistles for a song and a dance. A Neumann lathe setup in 1972 was $75,000, and that was just the cutting system; you still needed a room and a console, so you had to have a big budget, and there was only a few people doing it as a result. Now you fire it right up. And don’t forget that in the industry for almost ten years there were no tones on an analog tape, so you didn’t know how to line up to the machine. There were no tones? No tones. I’m one of the instigators in railing on these guys to go back and print the tones so I could at least set my machine to where your machine was. There was no such thing as nearfield monitoring either. It didn’t exist. People used to go to these strange studios with big speakers in the wall, most of which were useless as far as relating to the real world, and the engineers never knew that they were out in left field because they had nothing to take home. The cassette was just starting and only a handful of engineers that I can think of actually had a 15 ips (inches per second) tape machine at home that they could take home a mix and find out where they were. I started the process in the early ‘70s just in self-defense. I would say, “Look, before you do anything, come in with your first mix on-the-house and find out if you’re in trouble. We’ll listen to it and get you straight.” I just got tired of watching these guy’s eyes open the first time they ever heard their mixes outside of the studio. “Oh, my God. I couldn’t hear any highs in the studio so I kept adding highs.” That absolute horrendous reality is really the reason why nearfields came in.

So very, very sad. One of the big three mastering engineers who made mastering its own seperate art form to a level where studios/labels didn't even try to do it in house any longer. Famous for that all tube signal path designed and built by his brother Sherwood. There is a great deal about him in Holzman's book about his Elektra Records. Rest In Peace Mr. Sax.

Yeah, unfortunately, like a lot of computer companies, they just get too big and go downhill. They shifted from being a manufacturer to a marketer, and when that happens the quality typically suffers. They are currently spiraling downhill with no end in site just like Apple did in the 90s. They are still about 3rd in market share in PC market, but it is hard to get giant in that business and keep it all together. Compaq couldn't do it, nor IBM, mor Dell. There is a definite life cycle to these companies and if they cannot reinvent themselves they implode and get gobbled up by someone else (like Compaq, IBM PC division, Pakard Bell, etc.). You want reliability and support, by USA made. MacPro made in Texas like Dell used to be, Lotus, and Velocity Micro, Puget Systems, last three are supported here also. Scary that a monitor catches fire though, wow. I am guessing there was no UL lable on that thing.

No, but you can literally mute them.

Lots of stores in upstate NY are participating. http://www.recordstoreday.com/Venues?state=NY&venue=&zipcode=

Important to support your record store on RSD. What a great post.

Have seen Yes many, many times, all with n ... until last year at the ACL theater, about 400 people, I was blown away. Wakeman was noticeably absent, but Howe, squire and White were never better, I think they have done nothing but improved. To "hang" with that band for a few days with a "few" of my closest friends on a cruise would be incredible. Nektar and Caravan were pretty good in their original lineups, don't know how it would be today. Can you imagine the number of drug sniffing dogs they are going to have for that cruise passing by the bags preboarding, as you embark? Yes on a cruise, now I kmow I am old.

So how is that Steak?

But, to my knowledge, existing systems are already good in all 50 for the reasons you state. There are no laws because there have been no degrees of autonomy. We are both just crystal balling, but I still think it will start at the local level first and move out. I also believe there will be a lot of confusion until it is sorted out. Dave Existing systems are, they require continuous drivet monitoring. This is why Google car wad developed in Nevada, they got NV to adopt legislation to allow development and testing. No state currently allows a vehicle to operate on its own. Your vision of a car going and parking itself after it drops you off at the office, or sitting in back seat while it drives you, will require legislation. The technology obviously exists, but laws only allow for development and testing currently. One was demonstrated in Austin, but was sponsored by TXDot. That is how thesr demos are happening, or they put someone behind the wheel in states that will not give a temporary waiver or permit. some permiting is expensive because they literally close off highway to othet traffic and the reason why in some videos it is only vehicle on the road.

Here is the text of the current bill. Distinguishing autonomous from driver assistance devices, provides for driver's license, and insurance. Also provides only TXDot and manufacturers can operate them for testing, and insurance requirements. Also provides that minimum standards will be developed. https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB1167/2015This is where politics intersects with technology. Automakers will want Congress to step in and create legislation on autonomous vehicles that provides that US DOT, specifically Highway Safety Administration be the one that creates standards so that they know the money spent to develop a production autonomous vehicle will be legal in all 50 states. Texas, like CA, NV, etc., wants to be able to generate business by allowing companies to develop and test here.there.They also seek to clarify that technology such as adaptive cruise isn't autonomous. The ability to change a lane or turn at an intersection would be. UT got 20 million last year for research on how to handle for autonomous vehicles, including the ability to bid for priority. If traffic is the concern you never want to see that make the light of day.

A bill got filed last week for this session by Rodney Ellis. His bill would require special DPS license with designation for AV. http://tti.tamu.edu/policy/texas-tribune-points-to-tti-research/ Last session it was HB 2932 (2013), (we are every two years, odd numbered years and session ends in August unless recalled by Governor). Links to that bill which never went anywhere. https://legiscan.com/TX/bill/HB2932/2013 You can sign up to track bills for free to see where they go. However, it is a free for all at the end of the session and anything can happen.

But, to my knowledge, existing systems are already good in all 50 for the reasons you state. There are no laws because there have been no degrees of autonomy. There are laws. Several states have already passed laws regulating autonomous cars and the Federal government issued an advisory back in 2013. "Self-driving vehicle technology is not yet at the stage of sophistication or demonstrated safety capability that it should be authorized for use by members of the public for general driving purposes." Four state, Michigan, CA, NV and FL have adopted legislation for limited testing and use. About 15 or so have rejected it, for now, Texas being one, and others have mot considered it. The big question is in t he states where there in nothing on the books, is it legal to operate there? There is no federal law to prevent it, just the policy statement from DOT you mentioned in 2013.

Well, you are expect faster action than I am. The ramp up to significant saturation of the (I think) L3.5 or whatever vehicles like the Infinity in the video that could easily handle an HOV lane autonomously (bearing in mind that is hands off as I use the Oxford definition) is going to take at least a couple of years. I think the restrictions are going to take place slower. Further, this really SHOULD be a state thing in at least the early years until uniformity across the Interstate system becomes necessary. Not sure the Feds have anything to do with HOV lanes or city laws. Dave It can't be a State thing. For this thing to take off the way you would like, a manufacturer has to be able to build one system that is good in all 50 states. One way, of many, to be able to do that is to apply for and get certification from DOT/NIHTSA that specifically seeks federal premption. Different systems can seek seperate certification, they will want their 15 year patents if available, but they don't want to have to tailor to each state. It would take a century to do that and you would only have them in large markets. If they get DOT approval and premption state's cannot limit the use or outlaw them. States can license their use differently, and can tax them differently.