MIT Tech Day 2004: Shifting Gears (Transportation) – Finke, Roos, Heywood, Augustine, Moniz, others

MIT Tech Day 2004: Shifting Gears (Transportation) – Finke, Roos, Heywood, Augustine, Moniz, others


[MUSIC PLAYING] GARVIN: They
assured me we’re not going to give you a lavalier. The mics will be on. This is the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and this is how
we start the day. It’s my pleasure as the
executive vice president of the Alumni Association
to welcome all of you this morning to Tech Day 2004. The committee and staff
working on the program have put together
another stunning day of academic interest
with time for Q&A, discussion with the presenters. And we’re very excited
about the program. We are living on the edge
a little bit this morning. We’re scheduled at 11:45 to
have our alumnus traveling the furthest for his reunion to
join us from the International Space Station. And we hope that all will go
well with NASA and in addition to talking about the
automobile this morning to get a little report from space. There has been a change in
the afternoon programming. There will be a
wonderful opportunity for I think more discussion. We tend to pack these programs
so tightly with speakers that sometimes speaker
cancellations are a blessing. This afternoon, we will have
Norman Augustine, Dean Cayman, and Ernest Moniz, and
have time to really talk about some important
issues with them. I wanted to recognize all
of the good friends here and the people I
hope will soon be good friends for your
continued support of MIT. And I wanted to especially pay
tribute to one special guest. It was noted at
commencement yesterday that it was the first
time in 44 years that Paul Gray was not on
the commencement stage. Paul has been on that stage as
a faculty member, chancellor, president, chairman,
and now again as a faculty member
for the last 44 years. But yesterday he was instead
marching with his 50th reunion class as the class president. And I think for that
remarkable achievement, we owe Paul and Priscilla
a round of applause. [APPLAUSE] Paul and I were
discussing this yesterday. I believe that must be a
record, although he thinks that perhaps President
Killian spent as many years on the stage. But I suspect Paul will
surpass that in the future. It’s my pleasure to introduce
our morning moderator. The day will be split into
two sessions, this morning moderated by President
Vest, in the afternoon by our distinguished
guest, Norman Augustine. Chuck needs no
introduction to this crowd. He is MITs 15th president. And conveniently for our topic
today and our guest speaker, he chaired the President’s
Advisory Committee on the redesign of the space
station in 1993 and ’94. So he knows far more about
this than the rest of us. And we’re delighted to
have this opportunity to feature that today. Chuck needs no introduction,
but he deserves our biggest applause for his bold and
disciplined leadership of MIT for the past 14 years. Without further
ado, President Vest. [APPLAUSE] VEST: Thank you, Beth,
and good morning everyone. Over the last few years
you’ve heard a great deal about so-called disruptive
technologies, phrase coined by Clay Christensen up
at the Harvard Business School. Disruptive technologies
are those innovations that have the potential
to truly change the way we live, to
transform the economy, and in the end to
reshape our world. Today’s technology
day program is designed to discuss
what certainly has to be the greatest
disruptive technology of all time, namely
the automobile. Over the course of the
last 100 years or so, the automobile has
spawned entirely new industries, remade
cities, and spurred the growth of suburbs
and exurbs and come to play an increasingly
important part in our daily lives. Now I’m going to be honest with
you at this point in my speech, there’s a little
sentence in brackets that says tell some anecdotes
about your personal experiences with cars. But I figure that if I got
started on our families ’36 Ford, my ’49 Chevy or my ’49
Plymouth, my ’54 Volkswagen, or even my 1985 Dodge Aries
station wagon with a stick shift, we’d be here all day. So let’s hear from
some people that really know about this industry. For most of this period,
the United States has been thought of
as a car culture. But since World War II,
the private automobile has actually been
transforming Europe as well. It has played an enormous
role in the development of contemporary Japan
and South Korea, and is now beginning to make its
mark in China and other rapidly emerging economies. There is no doubt that the
automobile has been and remains a powerful symbol of personal
freedom, an important engine for both economic
opportunity and for leisure. But there is at the
same time no doubt that it has troubling
consequences as well in consumption of
energy and the production of environmental pollutants
and in land use and community planning. In other words, the automobile
is a powerful technology that in fact is still developing
and that has profound economic, but also social and
policy impact as well. If that doesn’t sound
like the kind of a subject that MIT ought to be concerned
about, I don’t know what is. In fact these are exactly the
kinds of issues and problems that MIT as you know
seeks to tackle, places where the world needs
our expertise and our vision. So it is not
surprising that we have been involved for many
decades with questions raised by the automobile. As far back as 1929, a generous
gift from Alfred P. Sloan Jr. provided for the establishment
of the Sloan Automotive Laboratory, which remains
an international center of research in automotive
and engine technologies. During the 1980s and
’90s the automobile was at the center of MITs
groundbreaking studies of industrial productivity
and competitiveness that began to develop during
Paul Gray’s presidency, at a time in which as you
know the manufacturing sector of our economy
was deeply threatened, and today work on issues
related to the automobile continues across
the Institute as we develop both new
automotive technologies and a new understanding
of the car social and environmental impact. The impact of this
work is leveraged through a collaboration
with many stakeholders from industry, from
government, and from non-governmental
organizations, NGOs. This morning we will hear
about central challenges and opportunities
before us today about the automobiles
economic impact, its fundamental technologies,
its impact on the developing world, and its role
in individual lives. This afternoon’s session
will look to the future, encouraging us to
think about resources, the relationship of
the car to urban life, and the possibility
of alternatives. This morning our
first speaker is going to be professor Dan Roos. Dan is the Associate Dean
for engineering systems in the School of Engineering
and the co-director of our engineering systems division. A member of the
MIT class of 1961, he holds the Japan steel
industry professorship of engineering. Dan is going to talk to us
about the automotive sector, future challenges
and opportunities. But I can’t help insert
Dan at this point a little anecdote
that says something about the quality of your work
and the work of MIT in general. Rather early in
my presidency, not too long after Dan’s
remarkable book, The Machine That Changed the
World, about productivity and lean manufacturing in the
automobile industry came out, I had a trip to Germany
on behalf of MIT and had an appointment
to spend an hour with the then chairman of the
then company Daimler-Benz. And I had been warned up
one side and down the other that everybody at
Daimler-Benz recognized their company and its miserable
productivity and quality ratings in the anonymous
companies in Dan’s book. Watch out, they said. This is a big, powerful
European chairman. He’s going to beat you up. So I walked in with great
fear and trepidation, said hello and so forth, sat
down, and he looked over at me and he said, that book
that you guys wrote at MIT, it’s going to have
more positive impact on this company than anything
that’s ever happened. And that’s exactly what we
want to have happen here. And I think indeed Dan’s work
had impact not only there, but around the world. Following Dan we’ll hear from
another extraordinary MIT colleague who absolutely
anybody who knows anything about engines and combustion
and automotive technology knows and looks to as one of
the great gurus, our colleague Professor John Heywood. John currently is
the Sun Jae professor of mechanical engineering
and the director of the Sloan
Automotive Laboratory that I mentioned a moment ago. John will discuss future
automotive technology and fuels, the options
and their impact. Following the talks, the
remarks by Dan and John, the three of us will then go
to the other side of the stage and we will open up for
about 15 minutes of question and answer with you before
the mid-morning break. Dan. [APPLAUSE] CREW: They’re asking if you’d
please take your name tag off when you speak. [APPLAUSE] ROOS: It’s a pleasure and
privilege to be here today. I’m here wearing two hats, a
speaker in this technology day, and as was mentioned
earlier I am also here as an alumni of MIT and a
member of the class of 1961. So I thought it might
be interesting to take a look at what a car
looked like in 1961. The 1961 Chrysler Imperial
getting about 8 miles per gallon with tail fins. Like I could have put a Cadillac
in which had about three times as tall tail fins. Now, bear in mind that it wasn’t
until 1965 that Ralph Nader wrote Unsafe at Any Speed. There was no Environmental
Protection Agency. As a matter of fact,
there was no Department of Transportation. Japanese cars were not being
sold in the United States at that point in time. So things have really changed
in a very, very significant way. Chuck very eloquently
mentioned why the automobile is so important to us, from a
societal point of view in terms of its economic impact. From a personal point of view
it provides us with mobility to get to work, to
shop, entertainment, and from a societal
point of view as well. So when we think
of the automobile we have to think of it
in an overall context of an automotive system. There’s the infrastructure
upon which the vehicle is going to operate, which
is being subjected to increased congestion. There’s the urban
environment and the impact of both the vehicles
and the infrastructure on that environment. There are concerns
about sustainability, the impact on our environment,
particularly with regard to urban air pollution
and global warming; and other societal concerns,
fuel efficiency, energy conservation, automotive safety,
the disposal and recycling of vehicles, and
some new concerns, issues like road rage. And more recently
for those of you who have been following
all of the debate and concern about obesity,
joining the fast food chains as one of
the primary villains is the automobile, with
the implication being and probably correct
implementation because people are driving so much
they’re walking less. So this is a technology
that has had, as Chuck said, a really
significant impact on all of us. And also as Chuck indicated the
growth and use of automobiles is increasing all
over the world. This is not a US phenomena. We have become a dependent
society on the automobile. Public transportation
is an important, but unfortunately it
plays a minor role in terms of the amount
of passenger travel that it carries. And that role is decreasing,
and it’s decreasing even in the major,
large, high density cities of the world, the cities
that were really developed around public transportation. The public has
expressed their desire for the comfort, convenience
of automobile travel. They like a more low
density lifestyle. And so we really have become
an auto dependent society. There’s no alternative
to the automobile. Today I’d like to begin looking
at what’s happening in the auto industry and then look
at the future in terms of what auto production
may look like, where the future markets will
be, some of the challenges that we have with respect to
highway congestion automobiles and the urban
environment, and finally a few comments about the
implications for MIT. Automobile manufacturing in
the US has changed drastically. In the 1980s all Japanese
cars sold in the United States were manufactured in Japan. Today, the big three,
Chrysler, GM, and Ford, the American producers, are
closing manufacturing plants at the same time the Japanese
companies are opening up manufacturing facilities
in the United States, largely as a result
of globalization. And it’s not just
manufacturing facilities. It’s research and development. It’s design centers so that
these already in design centers are designing vehicles
for American tastes that are going to
then be manufactured at American plants. 50,000 Americans
are employed now in Japanese manufacturing
plants in the US, producing over two
million cars a year. The implication of
this is that we really have two auto industries
in this country. We have the big three, which
is Detroit based and unionized, and then we have the
so-called transplants, the foreign plants. And these are not just Japanese. Mercedes, BMW, also are
manufacturing cars here. They’re not Detroit based. They tend to be
primarily in the south. They’re all non-union in spite
of the efforts of the United Auto Workers to unionize them. As the big three
plants have closed. We have this very
unfortunate imbalance of more retirees
than active workers. 370,000 retirees and only
290,000 active workers in the big three. The implications of that are
severe in terms of legacy costs for health care and pension. It costs the big three
about $1,360 a car versus about $80 to $107 a
car for Toyota and Honda. Furthermore, union
contracts specify that if workers are laid
off, they still get paid. This has led General Motors
to continue auto production at a constant level
during the recession. The result of that has
been an oversupply of cars. The only way to get
rid of those cars is to offer these incredible
rebates, which you’re seeing, $5,000 or more per
car, 0% financing. And the other manufacturers
have had to respond to compete. This has had a major
impact on profitability. General Motors does not
make money selling cars in the United States. General Motors makes money
in auto financing and home mortgages, ditech.com,
and in selling cars in the Asia-Pacific market. We’ve seen an unfortunate
gradual decline in the market share
of the big three. In 1978 they had 84% of
the market here in the US. Today, in 2003 61%. The May figures just
came out a few days ago and the market share
is now below 60%. In addition to this, there’s
increased competition from Korea. Hyundai for many years who has
had a reputation for very, very poor quality, and now
it’s rated extremely high from a quality point of view. And Hyundai is the fastest
growing car company in the United States. In addition, US consumers have a
much greater choice of the cars to buy. Between 1974 and
2004 there has been a doubling of the
different types of models available to US consumers. So we have Volkswagen, the
so-called people’s car company manufacturing
inexpensive cars that now this year for the first time is
selling the Phaeton in the US. Prices start at $65,000
and go to $125,000. If you think that is a lot
of money to pay for a car, think again. Daimler, which
produces Mercedes, has come out with the Maybach. $350,000 to buy a Maybach. At the same time that
Daimler is moving upscale, they are also moving downscale. So next year you will be able
to buy the smart vehicle which is currently in Europe. This is a mini car. BMW will be introducing
the BMW 1 series. There are new market segments. Toyota, for example, is
offering a hybrid gasoline electric car as is Honda. This is the Prius. It’s now second generation. Toyota has found that their
market share among youth was dropping, so they’ve come
out with a new product line. Interesting looking vehicle. This is the Skia. So what’s happening is the
number of market segments is increasing. Each manufacturer feels the need
to cover every market segment. So there’s great duplication. They’re all chasing market
share and there’s only so much market share. They’re moving upscale. They’re moving downscale. You combine this with General
Motors overproduction of cars with the new
competition from Korea, and there is a huge, a
significant worldwide problem of overcapacity. This is a troubled industry
and it shows in profitability. Periodically each one
of these companies has been in pretty
dire financial straits. You might have seen
about two weeks ago that Mitsubishi
just got bailed out by one of the Japanese banks. Volkswagen, Fiat, had
major problems right now. The only car company, which is
in really good financial shape, is Toyota. The market
capitalization of Toyota is greater than the combined
market capitalization of GM, Ford, and
Daimler Chrysler, to give you some idea. But let’s talk about the future
and what auto production would look like. And let’s start with
the car buying process. This is an ad from
the Boston Globe that I cut out about
a week ago for one of Boston’s major car
dealers Herb Chambers. And Herb Chambers advertises
over 1,000 new vehicles in stock. Think for a moment
of the carrying cost of 1,000 vehicles in stock. The land that those
1,000 vehicles sit on. Let’s assume that a
vehicle goes for $20,000. Not unreasonable assumption.
$20 million of inventory is sitting on that dealers lot. Herb Chambers made
estimates, or one might say guesstimates, of
what cars people would like, but he doesn’t
always guess right. So here we are about to see the
2005 cars arrive and we still have brand new 2003
cars left over. So if any of you are interested,
Herb is having a blowout sale– [LAUGHTER] –to get rid of his 2003s. This excess inventory
is symptomatic of major inefficiencies in
the car production process. Manufacturing
takes only 1.5 days of what is a 40 day process. From the time a
dealer places an order with the factory to when
that vehicle is delivered takes 40 days. It is essentially an
industry push system, where on a quarterly
basis each manufacturer determines how many cars of each
model is going to be produced. Sometimes they’re right. Sometimes they’re wrong. Sometimes there are too many. Sometimes there aren’t enough. Instead the industry
needs to move to a customer whole operation
and a bill to order system. Now, bill to order of course
was pioneered by Dell computer and the automobile is much
more complicated product than a desktop computer. But nevertheless,
Chuck mentioned before the machine that
changed the world, which was done by the International
Motor Vehicle Program. That program
continues here at MIT, and the researchers
on that program have estimated and
in fact designed a system where it
will take five days from the time that a customer
orders a car at a dealership to when it’s
delivered, eliminating the need for not only
all this inventory, but numerous inefficiencies
in the supply chain. And it’s ironic,
but just this week the book Second Century, which
is a follow on book to Machine That Changed the World was
published by MIT Press. And so some of you may be
interested in more details. You should read that book. Let’s talk about
automotive markets. The US is basically
a replacement market, and Western Europe
is very minor growth. The major growth is in
the developing countries of the world. The motorization
of the third world with a particular
focus on China. China has 1.3 billion
people, and it’s largely an untapped auto market. There are 18.6 vehicles
per 1,000 people. You can compare that with
300 to 700 vehicles per 1,000 in the Western world. There’s been explosive
auto market growth. 3.25 million vehicles
built in 2002. That’s a 56% increase. 4.4 million vehicles in 2003. That’s a 37% increase. There is improved quality of the
cars that are being produced. GM Shanghai reports
about 23 bad parts per million delivered
compared with 3,000 bad parts per million five years ago. The energy and environmental
impacts are severe and several of
our speakers today will address those issues. What is unrecognized, what is
really a tragedy, the traffic fatality rate in China– last year with 24 million
cars there were 104 deaths. Now, this largely inexperienced
motorists and the large number of bicyclists. And you compare that
with Japan, which has three times
the number of cars, and the fatalities were 7,000. Even in the US with all
the cars that we have, the auto fatality rate is about
45,000, but less than half of what it is in China. I have grave concern
about the auto industry being overly dependent on China. There are of course great
economic uncertainties. If China has a hard
economic landing, it will have a hugely severe
impact on this industry. It’s obviously going to
affect lots of industries, but this industry in particular. I was sitting in the front with
Norm Augustine and Norm just got back from Saigon
and he was saying, boy, you won’t believe
the traffic there. And you go to Bangkok, as
these developing countries are motorizing, there is
this huge, huge congestion. And, of course, the congestion
is developing as well here in the developed world. It’s a very major problem. What I’d like to do is
describe a few very interesting approaches that some cities
are using to try and minimize the congestion and how
some of those approaches might suggest what the
highway system of the future is going to look like. In 1975, Singapore introduced
the first congestion pricing system in the world. The idea was if a
person wanted to travel into central Singapore
certain hours of the day, they had to pay a fee. Three years ago this
system was automated and an electronic road pricing
system was put in place. You can see here in
the vehicle there’s an in vehicle unit where
the driver uses a smart car to register to go into the city. There’s several
checkpoints where the vehicles are checked to make
sure that they have registered. There are two objectives
of this system. The first objective
is to encourage people who previously drove
to switch to mass transit. And it’s been very successful. The second objective is to
smooth the flow of traffic throughout the day so
that the charge varies by each half hour of the day. If Singapore sees that there’s
a period of the day when very few people use
the system, they’re going to put a low charge on,
and they’ll put a high charge on at times when lots of
people use it causing people to adjust. The same sort of principles of
yield management in the airline industry and what
electric utilities do to smooth the
utilization of the resource. Now, this was done in 1975. Since then no other city has
implemented congestion pricing because the politicians
were afraid. They said, my goodness gracious. What is going to be the
backlash from citizens if they’re charged to
drive into the city? That is until this
past year when Ken Livingstone,
the mayor of London, introduced a congestion
pricing system in London. It’s within this area. Covers about a million people. For those of you not
familiar with London, this would correspond roughly
to the area in Manhattan from about 59th Street
to the tip of Manhattan, the financial district, the
east side and the west side. Travelers need to pay
five pounds a day– that’s $8. –and they can register
by phone or internet or have a ticket bought
at a number of shops. This is not an automated system. There are about 300 surveillance
cameras around this area to check licenses and make
sure that the drivers are registered. It’s been a tremendous success. Everybody was skeptical. It would never work. Here’s some of the data. Traffic delays inside
the zone are down 30%. Traffic entering the zone is
down 18%; 55% of those people have switched to
public transport; 20% have switched to another
mode, primarily taxi; and 25% who previously
traveled through the zone but had no interest in
anything in the zone– it was simply the
shortest route. –now travel around the zone. There’s been no adverse traffic
impacts outside the zone. There has been a
decline in retail sales, but it’s unclear whether that’s
due to congestion charging or whether it’s due to the
recession, which has affected all retail business in the UK. Let’s now look at another
interesting approach with pricing. I think many of you are
familiar with the concept of high occupancy vehicle
lanes for car pools, van pools, and buses. And this is characteristic
of many of those lanes. There’s a lot of excess
capacity in those lanes. So the idea is to create from
those lanes high occupancy toll lanes. So in addition to the multi
passenger vehicles traveling free, single
occupant drivers will be allowed to travel
congestion free in that lane if they pay a fee. Variable pricing is
used to make sure that the lane stays
congestion free. So if we start to see it
build up with too many cars, the price goes up. The price changes
every six minutes. So you know you’re going to
get a congested free ride. There are three
positive impacts here. First of all, those
people willing to pay will get a congestion free ride. And at first they called
these Lexus lanes, the idea they’re for the very rich. But it’s very interesting. They’ve done surveys and all
income groups are using them, and they’re not using
them on a daily basis. They’re using them
when they really need to get some place quickly. So those people
travel congested free. You’re taking them off
the regular highway routes and a lot of money
is coming in which can be used to improve
the transportation system. There have been
successful implementations in California and in Washington
DC of these hot lanes. So successful that Maryland
and Virginia are now suggesting hot networks be constructed. And what this
suggests is that we will be moving to a two tier
or dual network of highways offering different
levels of service. You will have the existing
congested highway system where you travel for
free, or if you’re willing to pay a
fee you can travel on the congested
free HOT networks. Now, both the road pricing
system in Singapore and the HOT lanes use
electronic toll collection so that a person doesn’t have
to throw money in every day. They’re billed on
a monthly basis. This is one application of
an Intelligent Transportation System that links together
the driver, the vehicle, and the roadway. And this has profound
potential impact. There are other examples. Many of you are familiar
with OnStar by GM. We have navigation systems,
driver information systems, to tell the driver
how to go from point to point and in an emergency
to get service to the driver. But the most promising
potential is the ability to better manage the entire
transportation system, to be able to optimize
traffic signals, to control ramp access, to spot
accidents when they occur that block lanes and
remove those vehicles, to show boards where you can
say which parking lot still have space available for
drivers, for people waiting at bus stops to say when the
next bus is going to arrive. So what we are creating is
an information infrastructure to manage and control the
physical infrastructure. The highway system
of the 21st century will be built around
these concepts of pricing and the use of information and
control technology and ITS. We’ll have congestion pricing
to control congestion primarily in the downtown areas and
other congested highways. We will have variable
pricing on HOT lanes to offer congestion
free travel for a fee. And this will all be under
Intelligent Transportation Systems to manage and
control the network. So what we will see is a dynamic
responsive transportation system that is adaptable to
changing traffic conditions and provides choice to
the driver as to what they want to do. Now, there was limited
time and I was going to go into another innovation. I’m going to mention it briefly. I’m going to mention
it briefly because it was started by MIT graduates. And this is the
concept of car sharing. And this is intended
for people who live in the metropolitan
area to have only occasional use for a
car and they don’t really want to buy a car because
of the difficulty of parking and the cost of
maintaining that car. Zipcar started four years ago. It has 1,600 members and there
are 145 cars strategically parked around Boston,
Cambridge, and Somerville. In fact, there’s a Zipcar in the
Kresge parking lot right here. 12% of the members
who’ve joined Zipcar have sold the car upon joining. 25% to 35% have avoided
purchasing a car. So 80% of the Zipcar
subscribers don’t own a car. 95% of them don’t
use a car to get to work when it’s most
difficult to use a car. The estimate is that each Zipcar
is replaced seven to 10 cars, and that Zipcar has taken
15 cars off the street. You know how severe the
parking situation is in Boston. Taking 1,500 cars off the
street is non-trivial. So here’s an example of how
you’re trying to provide choice to urban residents
and how you’re trying to make the
automobile more harmonious with the
urban environment. I’ve talked about
the automotive system as a very complicated system. I’d like to spend just
a moment in concluding talking about the
implications of this for MIT. It’s a large scale system
which is characteristic of lots of other large scale systems
that we find in the world today, which are increasingly
dependent on technology, energy systems, communication
systems, the internet. They’re large scale
networks and they are expanding in size
and scope and complexity. We need engineers who
understand technology to design those systems. But those engineers need to know
more than just the technology. They have to understand
organizational issues. They have to understand issues
of the context, the impact, the social, political,
institutional factors. So what we need really is a
different new type of engineer that works with the
traditional engineering scientists, the technical
specialists, an engineer who has a broad understanding of how
to design large scale complex systems. And as usual MIT is
in the forefront. Five years ago MIT established
the Engineering Systems Division in the
School of Engineering. But although it’s in the
School of Engineering, it is a cross cutting unit
which has faculty coming not only from the
engineering departments, but from the Sloan School and
the humanities departments as well. The faculty and ESD has part
of their appointment in ESD and then the other part of
their appointment in one of these units. So it’s an organization
with porous boundaries. It’s an interdisciplinary
unit focusing on the creation of large scale complex systems. There are two objectives to
ESD, broadening engineering education and practice,
and developing a new field of study. In much the way MIT after
World War II revolutionized engineering education
and practice by introducing the concept
of engineering science, so to we believe a
similar sort of impact is going to happen with
regard to engineering system. Doesn’t mean engineering
science is less important, but we need both. And MIT is taking the lead role. So in conclusion, let
me just summarize. What I’ve described is some
really fundamental change, some fundamental
change with respect to how we might produce cars,
fundamental change in where cars are going to be sold,
fundamental change in terms of the way our transportation
networks are going to operate. What I haven’t talked about is
some of the really important harmful side effects
of automotive use, in particular the issues
of energy utilization and the issues of
environmental impact. And I haven’t talked about them
because of their importance. And because they’re
so important we’re going to have several speakers
who focus specifically on those issues to see if we
are on the verge of the need for fundamental change. So far the car has been a
reasonably adaptable technology that has been able to respond
to different regulatory needs in terms of air pollution,
global warming, safety, et cetera. So it’s my pleasure at this time
to introduce our next speaker, John Heywood who is director
of the Center for 21st Century Energy and the director of the
Sloan Automotive Laboratory. Let’s welcome John Heywood. [APPLAUSE] HEYWOOD: Let me follow Dan by
saying something about options as we look into the future. I’m going to look
at the technology that we’ve got under
development that we could put into our vehicles not in
a strict engineering sense, but much more in what other
possibilities, a robust view of the possibilities
and look particularly at the potential impacts
that these might have. Let me make a few observations
to set the context, the basic problem
is too many of us use too much stuff too often. [LAUGHTER] And it’s really
important to remember that there are these three
components of the consumption problems that go with our
transportation system, and the challenge
is that they’re all growing, all three of them. There’s more of
us, we drive more, and we use even more stuff. So it’s getting worse
and worse and worse. And as we look ahead we’ve
got a series of problems that I’m going to
say a bit about. Now, at the same time, we have
a very effective transportation system. It’s a vital part
of our economy. It’s a vital part
of our culture. It’s been there. It’s been evolving for
decades and decades. So of course it’s
very effective. And I drove from my house in
Luton to here door to door, eight or nine miles, 15
minutes this morning. That’s pretty effective. Now you say, well, it’s
early Saturday morning, yes. And, of course, the problem
with our transportation system is really we’d love to have
the same system, but only 2/3 of the number of
people using it. But that’s not possible. Now, most of the environmental
problems that transportation contributes to they’re
getting worse, while too we’re making progress. But I’ll talk a bit about the
broader scope in just a minute. It’s particularly
true that they’re getting worse fast and
in a very problematic way in the developing
world where there’s neither the sort of
organizational infrastructure nor the economic wealth to
deal with these problems effectively. And why this is a problem
is that our system is so vast that changing its
impacts take a very long time. Now, what are these impacts? Well, here’s a list. The ones I’m going to
talk about in more detail are the top two, petroleum
consumption and the greenhouse gas emissions, the carbon
dioxide that results from that. And that’s very appropriate. It’s perhaps our biggest
short, medium term problem, long-term too, but
$2 plus a gallon, gasoline is underlining
that for us. But you run your
eye down that list, in the developed world
we’re making progress on air pollution and it’s very
high on people’s priority list. I think the health impact is
clear and that’s the reason. We’re keeping some
things at bay. Noise, safety’s improving. At least in the
developed world it’s going definitely in the other
direction in our developing countries. The one that doesn’t
get much attention is the steady degradation
of our ecosystems that comes from both the road
structure, the facilities that relate to transportation,
and the vehicle impacts themselves, air
pollution, water pollution, et cetera. Interestingly, a
National Academy panel that I served on a few years
ago looked at all of these and picked out the ones they
thought were most important in a longer term sense. And that was number two, climate
change, and the last one, biodiversity, as a consequence
of ecosystem degradation. So there are lots of problems
and they result from this. Too many of us, too
much stuff, too often. Now, I’m going to
focus on the top two and here at MIT
I’ve been involved with colleagues in a number of
studies in our lab for energy and the environment,
which is the unit where much of the
sustainability issues, energy and environmental
issues, are being worked on by multidisciplinary groups. And I put the names up
here for a special reason. We’ve had some extraordinarily
talented graduate students work with us in these problems. Very able and very
idealistic young men. If you find Felix AuYeung’s
name is in the top there, he arrived on my doorstep and
I took him on for the project, and he proved an inspiration. He kept us older types
young, and we taught him how to do a robust engineering. It was a very good combination. And then he went off
to try and save China, which he found
discouraging, but he’s still just as idealistic as ever. Now, let me comment a
bit on the technologies, enough to give you some sense
of what our options are. Mainstream technologies,
gasoline engines, transmissions,
vehicle components, they get better all the time. Some studies we’ve done
show that typically engines get better about 1% a year. By not much you say,
but over 25 years that’s a lot of improvement. The only trouble is what
we’ve done the last 20 years is we’ve traded
increased efficiency in all of our vehicles. We’ve moved up in
size and weight and we’ve demanded
higher performance. So we’ve eaten up all
those gains in efficiency. There are lots of options. Some details. Some bigger changes that
are being developed. Some are coming into production. A lot of promise. We can make our technologies
better, but there’s a cost. It costs a bit more and the
demand for fuel economy is low. Dan mentioned hybrids. I’m sure you’ve
read about hybrids, this combination of
an internal combustion engine with a battery
and electric motor. Sometimes you use both. Sometimes one. Sometimes the other. They look very promising in
terms of a fuel economy’s perspective. Toyota’s doing very well
marketing its Prius. Honda’s following. Interest in hybrids
is rapidly rising. They really look like a
robust technical solution, but they cost a couple
of thousand dollars more and we’ve still even at $2. Got cheap gasoline. Diesels are going like
gangbusters in Europe. In many countries 50% of the
new car sales have half diesel. Half of them are diesels. Half of them are
gasoline engines. One reason is it’s driven
by differential taxes. All fuels are expensive,
but diesel’s less expensive. The problem in the US
is a business case. Can you make a
business case when we don’t know if
these diesels will meet the very strict emission
standards that California and the rest of the nation
have coming up in a few years? We don’t know whether
diesels will make it big. We don’t know whether
hybrids will make it big. But they’re good opportunities. On the more radical
end, of course, there’s hydrogen and
the technology that would use hydrogen fuel cells. Growing research activities
here at MIT in these areas. I’m involved and
many others are. Potential, yes. Maybe this is what we have
to do to get the carbon out of our transportation fuels. But as I list here, it
ain’t going to be cheap and the technology
isn’t yet that ready. And let me illustrate
that by looking at, well, how do these changes in
technology have impact, and then on what
time scale might we expect improvements in what
I call mainstream technology and some of these
really radical new ideas help us solve these problems? And I’m going to show
you a graph which we’ve produced that looks at– you put these new technologies,
you sell these new vehicles, they go into the fleet,
they’re used by you and me. What’s the cumulative
impact over time? Now we understand our fleet. There’s something
like 130 million, excuse me, vehicles out
there in the United States driving around. We add 15 million or so light
trucks and cars each year, the fleet’s growing. We drive ever more miles, et
cetera, et cetera, et cetera. All that’s well understood
and we can describe that. And here’s a graph that
I’ll spend just a minute on. It looks at the United States
billions of liters per year. I have no idea what a
billion liters per year is. You probably don’t
either, but it’s an unbelievably large
amount of gasoline. And then here we go 1970 at this
end of the graph out to 2035. I’m willing to go 30
years into the future. I have trouble going further. And obviously this is history. We are right about 2004 now. You can see things have
been growing quite fast. And the top curve, this
dark blue one, is no change. We keep doing what
we’re doing now. Technology gets better, but we
demand bigger, heavier vehicles and better performance. So we use it up. This curve is what we
think we might achieve if we start to take doing
something seriously, and then if we bring hybrids
in so that by 2035 half the new vehicle
sales are hybrids, we can turn this curve down. Now, you’re probably
looking at that and saying, boy, you’re not making
much difference. That’s the nature
of the problem. Cars last on average 15 years. It takes a long time to get new
technology, better technology, out there to have
a major impact. The bottom curve is if
we stop fleet growth and stop driving a little
more per car each year. And those are only fractional
percentage changes, but they compound over 30 years
an extraordinarily powerful way. You know that. When you buy a mortgage you know
that modest changes in interest rate are going to
have a big impact on your monthly payments. Now, what this says is with
this technology turning this curve around
and bringing it down is not going to be easy. And remember that
the Kyoto Treaty that we have not in
this country signed onto said we’ve got to get down
5% or 6% below this number. We ain’t going to make it. This is our opportunity space. If we do everything we
can possibly think of, we get to the bottom curve. But that’s a bit too optimistic. Human beings don’t like
spending extra money to constrain what they
do so that we improve the total impact situation. Now, just a couple
of minutes on this. Why does it take so
long to have impact? And what I’ve got
here is a table where I’ve laid out
the different stages. I’ve got an exciting
new technology. I want to get it into vehicles
and have it have impact. First of all, it’s
got to be competitive. So it’s to develop to the point
where it’s market competitive. And that’s the first stage. And what I’ve shown here is
diesels for the United States with good emission
controls, we’re about a generation,
three years or so, away from having
competitive technology. We can do it, but
it’s too expensive. Here’s an advanced
gasoline engine highly turbo charged to
follow the diesel path and make the engine
significantly more efficient. Again, a generation, roughly
three or four years, away from being competitive. The next stage is,
okay, Prius’ are out in production,
these new hybrids, but by the end of
this year there’ll be a total of 100 odd thousand
out there in use worldwide. That’s a small number. There’s no impact until
we’re producing them in the many millions. How long does that take to
penetrate across new vehicle production? We’ve got very
little case history to use to work that out. But typically at the best
it’s going to be 10 years. Our estimate for fuel cells
is something like 25 years once fuel cells are competitive. This is stage two. And the third stage is you got
to get a big number out there in use if you’re going to impact
our energy and greenhouse gas situation. So major fleet penetration. Today cars last about 15 years. So 10 years to get a
sizable number out there. Probably much longer if we’ve
got to get the hydrogen out there too. So you add all that up
and you take a bit off because they overlap. So 20 years for these
relatively mainstream technology evolutions. It’s 20 to 30 years. I get told off by two groups
on this column on the right. Some people say I’m
far too optimistic. Some people say I’m
much too pessimistic. So obviously I’m about right. [LAUGHTER] My final point is if we are
going to do something about it, we’ve got to raise the
importance of fuel consumption in the marketplace. And I’ve had another very
talented graduate student working with me an up
bend of [INAUDIBLE] under a series of policy
measures that reinforce. We’ve tried to get
stricter fuel economy standards through Congress. Doesn’t work. We’ve tried to raise
the gasoline tax. Doesn’t work. Let’s put all these things
together so that they add– there are synergies. –and if we got a
diverse set of measures, the political opposition
at a minimum gets diffused. So our strategy is to look
at a series of measures. And here’s an example. We’ve completed
some studies that look at what the impact
of this is likely to be. And as you glance
through it, we’re going to make the CAFE,
Corporate Average Fuel Economy. This is the United
States set of regulations that makes the manufacturers
meet these average miles per gallon for their vehicles. So we’re quite aggressive,
but other people in Congress have proposed this
in the past few years and the votes are growing. We can reinforce that with
something we call feebates. If you buy a really big heavy
vehicle that consumes a lot, you’ll pay an extra few thousand
dollars as an additional fee, and that will get
recycled to those who buy at the other end,
a very efficient vehicle. They’ll get a rebate. And the way it works
out, the rebates are several hundred dollars. The fees could be
$1,000 or $2,000. We bought a system like this
already, gas guzzler taxes. They’ve driven gas
guzzlers off the road, and then we couple this
with raising gasoline taxes, $0.05 a gallon a year. We don’t want to shock
the economy too much. We have to do things like this. And then finally we can
push the petroleum industry to increasingly bring renewables
into the fuel mix that we use. I was showing this the other
day to an industry group, and sometimes I
get the reaction, this will never happen
in the United States. And an auto engineer
from Germany who’s involved in the
environmental side came up to me
afterwards and says we’re doing all this
already in Germany. So when people tell
me this is impossible, I can now say, yeah, well there
are many countries in Europe where they’re already doing it. So what do we need to do? My group is taking this public. We are planning to
put a workshop on down in Washington for
congressional staff aides that explain the realities
here and get them to take this problem seriously. But we’re trying to find
a good slogan that will motivate the broader public. That’s you and me. I’m a broader public person
as well as an engineer here at MIT. What motivated me
to find a slogan was Maureen Dowd, who
writes these caustic columns in the New York Times. She ended one of them
about a Texas oilman by saying real men
don’t conserve. Now, negative slogans
aren’t a good idea. They’ve got to be positive. So we’re working
with Drive Lite. It’s got more in it
than you might think. We need more efficient vehicles. I’ve talked about that. We need lighter and
smaller vehicles. We can get used to that and
we will when we have to, but it ain’t going
to be that easy. We could moderate our driving. With cheap gasoline we
don’t have much incentive. That’s why we’ve got to
raise the price of gasoline and that there are things
that we don’t really want to talk about. If we all drove
less aggressively we would use
significantly less fuel. And you may well want
to add to this list. So that’s your agenda
and mine as we go away from this technology day
focused on the automobile. But it ain’t going
to be easy and it’s going to take better technology. It’s going to take
smart regulations that create some synergies so
we’re willing to share the responsibility of doing
something about this problem. And that’s the
change in attitudes that we’ve got to find a
way to find inside ourselves so that all of this can happen. Thank you. [APPLAUSE] VEST: Thank you very much
John and Dan for those really stimulating discussions. I’m going to be a little brutal. We have 10 minutes for
questions because we’re going to face a hard stop
with connecting later on this morning with the
International Space Station. There are two
microphones out here. There are also
some floating mics. 30 seconds, no more
to ask a question. We don’t want speeches. First question. That’s 15 of the seconds. [LAUGHTER] AUDIENCE: All right. I’m Sam Losh. I’m from the west and we
don’t want those small cars. We got big cars. Everybody’s got a truck. And we threw out
Governor Davis because he wanted to tax our big cars. And I’d grab this little
thing and I looked up at these big cars and
I think, gee, I better drive more defensively. How big a car can I get to
drive defensively enough? What are we going
to do politically? We can’t do that. We can’t get the little cars. HEYWOOD: Well, I’m going to
use the answer I just gave. There are large countries
in this world that have dealt with that and
they’ve obviously dealt with it economically in large measure. Some of us have big houses, we
pay more taxes on our houses. Some of us have smaller
houses, we pay less taxes. We’ve got a mirror that. We’ll get used to it because
the thing we will hang onto is amiability. ROOS: Let me just add
two things to that. Remember the ’61
car I showed you. We’ve come a long way
from those sorts of cars. So people can change in terms
of what their preferences are. At one point in time, we
had a regulated auto safety. Now auto safety is something
that people want to get. So people’s habits
can change over time. AUDIENCE: Professor
Gray, my impression is that if hydrogen were
free and reasonably priced fuel cell driven
cars could be made, there still would be
a problem in range because the storage of
hydrogen onboard is limited. Is that the case, John? HEYWOOD: Yes. What I often say about
hydrogen– and I’m working on it so don’t think I’m
against this as an option. Petroleum based fuels
are liquid gold. We have to recognize that. Gaseous fuels and hydrogen
is one much less convenient. They’ve got lots of problems of
which Paul just mentioned one. How do you store it? How do you get range? But we may have to transition
away from carbon based fuels. And right now hydrogen
looks the best of a not very attractive
set of alternatives. VEST: The yellow shirt. AUDIENCE: I mean, it
seems to me that the fuel efficiency and the
gas tax are clearly political problems today. But we saw in the
’73 under Carter that that could tip very
rapidly when people stood online for a few weeks, we got
fuel efficiency standards through Congress at that time. So there may be some
political tipping point that makes it possible. And my question really is
that if we got to that point, it seems to me that your
$0.05 a gallon per year is incredibly modest. In other words, you probably
couldn’t do that today at all. But when we get to being
able to do something, wouldn’t it be better to try
to do something that matters? I mean, I would argue that
half the DOD budget is already subsidizing our gas prices,
and that would be $0.50 a liter right there. So the question really
is if we got to the point where we could do
something with the gas tax, couldn’t we do more? HEYWOOD: Well, I’ll willingly
raise it to $0.10 a gallon, but I want to moderate
the shock as it were here. But let me say one more thing. What concerns me
greatly about this is as I showed the lead times
for change are very long and we may well be facing
on a 10 year or less time scale, what I’ll
call oil shocks, to our economy and
other major economies in the world driven by
growth in petroleum demand. We are not ready for that. And we really need
to start thinking about getting ready for that
because we can’t respond in six months and have an impact. ROOS: I think the
important thing is to establish the principle
that the gas tax can rise. Once you establish
the principle then you have the flexibility over
time to increase it from $0.05. VEST: Next brief question. AUDIENCE: Kyoto is bunk
as another fine product of the Sloan legacy. Dick Lindzen from Earth
and Planetary Sciences will tell you if you want
to save on greenhouse gases, stop watering your lawn. But my real question is, if
we’re serious about hydrogen, why haven’t we mentioned the
word nuclear power anywhere? HEYWOOD: A question
on climate change. If you want to pursue
this, something I suggest is that the IPCC, the
International Panel on Climate Change, a year or so ago put
out a summary report where they took conclusions from
all the research work that had been done over the
past decade or more, and they put it
into a thick report. I have to say that
when I read that, I had to admit that there’s
enough reality there we’ve got to take
this seriously. So I think we do have
to take this seriously. And I mentioned this
National Academy Committee study, climate
change and ecosystem degradation of
biodiversity loss were the two major unsustainables
that we thought were there in the
really long term that we would have to
find ways to deal with. ROOS: Ernie Moniz is a
speaker this afternoon and he did a really
pathbreaking study on nuclear with several
others here at MIT. So I think he would address
that in the afternoon session. VEST: Absolutely. Yes, sir? AUDIENCE: I also live
out in the West, which is the land of
the large vehicle, and I notice in my daily
driving that the percentage of single occupancy, Ford
Expeditions and Chevy suburbans and those kinds of
vehicles, it’s phenomenal. It’s just an incredible
number of them and people claim that they
use them for long trips. The reality is they use
them to drive to work. And they’re all quite
expensive vehicles and yet we seem unable to handle
a two variable problem, which is that we’re trying to help
people who are at the lower end of economy meet their
transportation needs, and yet people who are at
the higher end of the economy are driving $30,000 to
$50,000 to $80,000 vehicles, and yet not paying
the carrying cost and in environmental terms. How would we address that? ROOS: Well, we
ought to understand that John mentioned before the
corporate average fuel economy standards. And that’s a two tier system. It made sense when it was set up
when these vehicles were being used for off road operation. The CAFE standard for
trucks is much less than it is for passenger cars. And so the most important thing
to do to change that situation is to revisit the
whole issue of CAFE and make sure that
vehicles that are really being used for
passenger purposes are subject to the same
stringent standards that passenger cars are. HEYWOOD: Can I just add to that? I often ask everybody,
including myself, the average price of a new
car is $18,000 to $19,000. And I asked my audiences
put out your hand if you bought a new car that
was below the average cost. [LAUGHTER] Almost nobody puts up
their hand because we talk to high end professionals. That’s not the broader public. Let’s think about that. VEST: I saw seven hands. [LAUGHTER] AUDIENCE: Sometimes
the problem is you keep designing a small tank,
and the same group of people are– maybe it’s time to call
in the evolution biologist because the fact
is 98% of the space and the mass of the
vehicles are not needed. The other thing is you could
have an organelle system in which one part inside travels
on the inner city and the rest stays in the parking lot. And there is interchangeability
for different situations. A different type of
motor or something else could be plugged in. But these are probably a
long way down the line. HEYWOOD: I think yes
is the answer to that. The more better
ideas, the better. VEST: We do have some
very innovative work going on between folks in
the Media Lab, Frank Gehry and other
engineers here, thinking a bit about some really radical
ideas and transportation. Liz. AUDIENCE: Well, we are talking
about transportation today and the long term. And I think what Dan
said at the beginning about the engineering
systems, the vision is that we need to link
transportation to our living and working infrastructure. And we’ve designed our
communities and our cities around the car,
and cities in China are reconfiguring themselves
to accommodate the automobile. I think if we’re looking
50 years out in the future, besides hydrogen
and fuel cells we should look at different
ways of designing our urban infrastructure. And it sounds like
your program may be a vehicle for doing that. And I was wondering
if you would comment on how you fit that,
how you connect that through your engineering
systems division. ROOS: Sure. Well in this case, I’m going
to think of another technology. And that is what
the internet has done in terms of how it’s going
to change our mobility needs. And bear in mind that there’s
a real link between mobility and accessibility. And what the internet
has allowed us to do is to work at home, to shop at
home, to do a lot of services in the past that was going
to require trip making. And that’s no longer the case. Now, you might say
from that, well gee, there’ll be less trips then. That’s not the case necessarily. When the telephone was first
introduced people said, well, the impact of the
telephone is less travel. Just the opposite happened. The telephone opened
up new opportunities where people got
to know one another and there was more travel. So I think what
is going to happen in terms of our
mobility needs is going to change rather dramatically. One thing that we
should bear in mind is telecommuting is
really increasing. And for the first
time many people no longer need to be
physically close to their job. And so I mean this starts to
get at what you’re saying. You start to see people changing
their locational decisions and also changing
their mobility habits. So we have to think
from that point of view. Not just supply, but how demand
is going to change as well. VEST: We’re going to
take two more questions if they’re really brief. Yes, sir? AUDIENCE: I’m surprised that
you haven’t said anything to acknowledge the huge costs. And I mean money costs of
a transportation system that’s almost totally
based on cards. We have the paradox
here that even in a rich part of the
country if you suggest making a public
transportation system they say they can’t afford it,
and yet figures I’ve seen say that in places that have a
complete public transportation system the cost is roughly half
as a percent of national income for transportation. Could you comment on that? ROOS: Yeah. I think you have
to be very careful. And I can’t do justice to your
question in a very brief period of time other than to
say that people really misunderstand what the cost
of public transportation is. And if one looks at data
on a per capita basis, particularly if one is talking
about rail rapid transit, it is a highly
uneconomical system in terms of building new
rail rapid transit systems. On the other hand, there are
some really interesting ideas which started out
in South America– and maybe Ralph Gakenheimer
will talk about them. –of using bus platoons to serve
almost the same purpose as rail rapid transit does. So let me simply say that
I think a lot of the things that the press claims about
inequity between auto travel and public transit
is just not correct. VEST: Last question from Jerry. AUDIENCE: Hi. I drive a battery
electric vehicle and although the
auto industry seems to have completely
written off that approach, it seems to me to have
a lot of advantages. The only big
disadvantages that I can see being the
high cost of batteries are produced in the current
volume and the severely limited range. So if we believe that there may
be some changes in attitudes about driving, do you
think it’s possible that that approach may come back
for the commuter car market, or does it have fundamental
permanent limitations? HEYWOOD: I’m surprised that
the battery industry in a sense doesn’t line up more strongly
behind what you’ve suggested. They’re not very optimistic
about high energy storage battery technology. That’s different from the
batteries that go into hybrids where you want high power. But this range limitation
means, I think, that a battery
electric vehicle can’t compete with a standard car. Maybe there’s a market
for different cars, but to date that
hasn’t developed. So I think as that’s
an open ended question, but we certainly shouldn’t
take it off our list of things that we investigate. VEST: MIT does the
impossible, and we are now going to achieve
that by actually having a 15 minute break. Please we’re going to
reconvene at 20 till. We are going to
start at 20 till. There is an alternative which
is to stand up and stretch in place. But we have 15 minutes. Please thank John and Dan. [APPLAUSE] [INTERPOSING VOICES] [MUSIC PLAYING] [INTERPOSING VOICES] VEST: We are about ready
to reconvene if everybody could please get to your seats. [INTERPOSING VOICES] VEST: Okay. We are going to get
started now folks. Our next speaker will
be Ralph Gakenheimer, professor of urban planning
here at the Institute. Ralph is going to talk about
the role of the automobile in growing the economies of
the third world, the developing parts of our world. He will be followed by the
last speaker of the morning, and that will be
Joe Coughlin, who is the director of the MIT
age lab, something we all have increasing interest in. Joe is going to comment on
new automobile technologies for the older driver, which he
has termed Driving Miss Daisy Digitally. And again, as I said, after we
have heard from Ralph and Joe we will have a few minutes
for questions and answers, and then we will hook up with
Mike Finke on the International Space Station. So Ralph, please come up. [APPLAUSE] GAKENHEIMER: Good morning. It’s a pleasure to have the
opportunity to share some ideas and hopefully propel some debate
and discussion for later on. Going to talk about the
part of the world, which is most impacted by the motor
vehicle, the developing world, and I’m going to
talk in particular about India and China. Why India and China? Well, you already know. They amount to 40%, 2/5 of
the population of the world and a much, much
higher proportion than that of the potential
increased motorization and fleet growth in the world. You may have noticed in recent
issues of the London Economist that China last year
absorbed fully 40% of the entire world’s
production of cement and accounted for 90% of
the increase of the demand for steel. My colleague Rémy Prud’homme
at the University of Paris has concluded that the Chinese
are building as many lane kilometers of highway each year
as the entire rest of the world is building each year. Shifting gears big time. And since this is primarily an
urban problem in many respects, I’d like to bring your attention
to some figures concerning the two economic motors
of these countries. Mumbai, former
Bombay, and Shanghai. They’re cities of
about the same size. 17, 18 million as megacities. Their growth rate is
about the same rate, although Chinese figures are
difficult because they exclude the floating populations. Call it 3% a year,
roughly doubling the size of the city
every 24 years or so. Level of modernization is 70
or 80 motor vehicles per 1,000. That compares with 750
to 800 motor vehicles per 1,000 population
in the United States. And more than half
of those so far is two wheelers because these
are countries where it all started with a
bicycle, and they tend to ramp up through two wheeled
motor vehicles before reaching four wheels. The rates of increase
are staggering. In China, 16% a year
on recent average. That means that the
fleet is doubling every four and 1/2 years. Imagine motor vehicles doubling
every four and 1/2 years. In India only 7%
a year, therefore doubling every 10 years. The economies are
growing healthily. 6.5 the GNP in
India, but in China they’ve recently moved up from
their usual 8% a year of growth in GNP. And note that the population
is not rising fast. Up to about 9.5. And some observers say that it
may be as high as 13% a year. And, of course, motorization
and fleet enlargement is very sensitive to growth
in the gross national product. The purchasing power parity
is quite decent for the– these are city figures
now, not national. –is quite decent in
both of these cities. The Gini coefficient is a
measure of income inequality. The maximum is one, and
the higher the figure the more unequal and skewed
the income distribution. 0.7 is about as high as it
gets in the developing world. So India has a very skewed
income distribution, but a substantial high income
group who are buying vehicles. China is a much
flatter distribution because of the
regime, but that’s changing extremely rapidly
with the liberalization of the economy. And, of course, the
greatest change in income is in the upper income part of
the income distribution, which, again, indicates the prospect
for buying a lot more motor vehicles. One thing that takes you
into a very different culture is to notice the
densities of cities which are very important to
the transportation problem. 250 to 255 people per
hectare in China and India. That’s as compared,
say with Boston, at around 12 or 13
people per hectare. This is 20 times the density. It’s about 100 people per acre. And that’s important to the
transportation situation. The mode shares
are 65% in Mumbai, which is fairly typical
for a developing country. But in Shanghai it’s
considerably lower largely because
of their tradition of state owned enterprises which
provide housing close to work and facilitate the use
of bicycle and walk trips to a much greater extent. The share of two and
four wheel vehicles therefore is substantially
less, two wheeled motor vehicles that is to say. And for reasons just explained,
the share of bicycle and walk trips are considerably
higher in China and has a consequence on
this slow transit level. As a matter of fact,
now that I think of it, that transit share is
about the same as Boston. The trip rate is modest,
but rapidly growing. That is the number of
trips per person per day. This is the background
of what we’re looking at. These cities are decentralizing
from these very high densities at an explosive rate. It’s partly caused by
motorization, growth of the automobile
fleet, but it’s also caused by other conditions
and policies of the government which would be interesting
discussion for a longer presentation. The fact is that
they are spilling out over the countryside
at a very rapid rate. And on the streets
you see, of course, the mix of vehicles
that represent the process of transition that’s
going on in these countries. And in particular
in China there’s an effort oftentimes to isolate
different kinds of vehicles into different lanes so that
their different operating characteristics don’t collide. But when you’re in the street
it’s a somewhat different deal. I’m about to tell you how to
ride a bicycle in Shanghai when you’re making a left turn. This is only for the
courageous listener. Bicycles are on the
outer lane on both sides and motor vehicles
are on the inner lane in the same direction. Two parallel lines each side. So when you reach the
corner on your bicycle and want to make
a left turn, you insinuate your
bike left in front of the phalanx of
oncoming motor vehicles so that when the light changes
and the cross traffic breaks you can dart across
the place diagonally in order to get your left turn
lane before these guys get a chance to start, and
while your counterparts on the other side are
similarly keeping the oncoming traffic there from starting. But of course the motor
vehicles eventually barge into this and the
result is mayhem. If it was football you could
call it broken field running. And the consequence
of this is that all over China municipal
governments are actively repressing the use of bicycles. And of course the environmental
community is up at arms. How can you possibly
suppress the use of a vehicle that’s so
environmentally friendly, so healthy, so democratic,
and so flexible? And indeed it is democratic
because at the present time in China nationally there
is 1.8 bicycle per family. And the family is small so
there’s practically a bicycle for every able person. And that’s true across all
eight octiles of the income distribution. So it’s a very widespread. And how can you suppress
a mode like this? Well, the cities
are doing it to try to handle situations
of this sort and also to turn back the
dilution of the market for public transport,
which, let’s face it, can move people
spatially speaking in a more efficient manner. In India we have the
same kinds of problems, especially involving
the participation of two stroke engines,
this three wheeled vehicle, which is very
prominent in the traffic. In India it pollutes a lot
and makes an enormous amount of noise, and the
buses of course still have to access
the sides of the street in order to alight and
take on passengers. And the problem of parking
is absolutely severe because there isn’t
enough around. So as here at Konark
place in Delhi, there’s parked cars everywhere
and leaving only a thin line for the progress of cars around
this heavily used business center. And the general access
to public transit is also extremely difficult,
even for those who choose that. And the whole question
of the density of traffic is extremely problematic
in all over Asia. In India they’re
fond of building these flyovers,
overpasses, but it’s not clear to me or lately even
to them how effective that is. And even folks who are seeking
charity among the gridlocked vehicles are suffering
also from the pollution caused by these two stroke
engines, which are really a problem. So how can we structure
this into some sense of a set of challenges
for policy and planning in these countries? First is the question
of congestion. The first problem
indeed is to understand the future of congestion. As you’ve noticed,
these cities are at least as congested
as American cities, probably more so, on 1/10
the number of motor vehicles per 1,000 inhabitants. How can that be possible? Well, the answer, of
course, is that there are several technologies
transitioning and they’re all on
the street at once getting in each other’s ways. It’s difficult to reorganize
trip itineraries for people who can’t change as fast as
the congested conditions, and the problem of overcoming
land use patterns which no longer serve the current
situation are difficult. But the point that is
important to understand here is that the level of
congestion suffered by a city is not so much a
function of the number of motor vehicles per 1,000,
but rather the speed of change in that figure. It’s the first derivative that’s
the measure of the problem, not the absolute number. And the issue is how
much lag, and that’s all a very interesting discussion. Many case for the time
being, as you see, all over the world
trip lengths are very long and difficult
problems are taking place. Dan Roos has given
me a great start for suggesting the ways
of meeting this challenge. One is the role for car sharing. That was Dan’s
Zipcar discussion. And in the developing
world it may serve a somewhat
different purpose of permitting the
use of an automobile from time to time when
necessary for people who could never own one because
they don’t have the money. In the case of new electronics
there are just many roles in the rationalization
of traffic through driver advisory systems,
which will enable people to for example, choose better
times of the day to drive, to choose more
appropriate destinations, to choose more
appropriate routes, to become aware of when and
where they can find a parking place and stuff like that. And finally, the
possibilities for limitations of the use of automobiles,
other vehicles, in highly congested
parts of cities. This is already undertaken
in a number of cities. For example, Santiago
de Chile, Sao Paulo, Bogotá and Mexico
City in Latin America, and others elsewhere for
purposes of environmental improvement or
improved mobility. And I’m glad that Dan brought
up the question of congestion pricing because it looks like
something whose time has come. For example, I’m part
of a project sponsored by Mario and Luisa
Molina of MIT where I convened a group of
transportation officials from all over Latin America
in Mexico City recently, and we discussed possibilities
that they were very forthcoming about on congestion
pricing, which is interesting and
surprising because it used to be anathema to even
speak of making a charge. And interestingly, during about
an hour they discussed yes, but how are we going to sell it? What are we going to call it? Congestion pricing? Value pricing like in America? Hotlines? Rationing? Externalities control? I know. You got to be an economist
to believe in that. Anyway, the whole
thing is a matter of how to position it because
in the developing world I believe this is probably
the only reasonable way to make significant
inroads on the problem. The second problem, of
course, is the issue of public transport
because it accounts for 70% of the trips in
most developing cities. And public transport is an
extremely precarious mode with all kinds of political
problems and management problems and financial
problems that are practically very difficult to unravel
and have given rise to the appearance of a lot
of unauthorized transit in many cities which makes
the problem further difficult. The problems here are how to
create managerial strength and sources of financing
for public transport, how to design and enact more
adequate system integration. I mean network integration
and fair integration, maybe management
integration, which is very important
and incidentally has been accomplished
more in the recent past than it has during
the earlier 30 years or so we’ve been
trying to do it, probably because
computer programs which can express and adjust to
different management positions in the course of
this integration are now possible and available. Another possibility
is to adopt new modes for more rapid transit service. And Dan also led me into that. The move that’s currently
taking the world by storm– it’s the most
explosive innovation in my lifetime in
public transport and possibly since the
invention of the streetcar in the late 19th century. This is bus rapid transit. This is the very successful
system of Bogotá, Colombia, called TransMilenio. And here you have big
buses with very wide doors. They’re left loading,
not right loading. They have independent dedicated
rights of way and prepayments stations and all kinds
of new electronics that expediate the movement
of passengers and of vehicles, and promise to possibly
keep the center cities alive during a
process of rising congestion when they otherwise, as it’s
happened many times before, might become
economically depressed. There’s also a system
in Quito in Ecuador, and the original one in
Curitiba in the state of Paraná in southern Brazil. They don’t necessarily
take up as much space as it seems here in some cases. They travel also
in mixed traffic. The third point I’d like
to make concerns land use. It’s in a way the hard part. The explosive decentralization
of these cities has enabled people
in a higher standard of living to take more
advantage of all kinds of new technologies
they didn’t have before. And it’s certainly necessary. These cities are far too
dense for modern living, but they have at the
same time created a number of important problems. Social fragmentation, the
consumption of more fuel, more pollution, the consumption
of agricultural land, and so forth. So the challenges here are to
permit, maybe even encourage decentralization,
but at the same time constrain it so that
it doesn’t expand to the point of absorbing
too much natural resources and also making the place
extremely difficult to serve by any kind of structured
transportation attention. The idea would be
to cluster demand in the course of
decentralization as much as possible
in order to be able to handle transportation
demand by higher volume means. In the end, of course,
what all of this is about is a need for the
developing countries to raise the standards of
living of their people. And so at the bottom
of all of this is mobilizing the labor
market; is reducing costs of production; reducing
costs of distribution; improving the logistics system;
and recognizing the fact that in the course of it,
transportation infrastructure investments generally have
very high rates of return; and can improve the situation
when properly managed; and that private
capital is increasingly interested in these. And again, based I think
on a lot of lessons learned during the past years and
the use of computer models for working out the
distinctions of obligations and responsibilities of
different participating parties makes possible a relatively
intricate public/private relationship to take
place, and especially good assignment of
risk to take place. And therefore some
countries are developing transport systems which
are highly privatized, particularly Turkey, Chile,
Colombia, Mexico, and a number of other countries. So finally it’s important
also to design these solutions because otherwise
you know by expanding the network without
relieving the throttles you in effect
worsen the condition rather than improve it. And that is unfortunately
what’s going on in some parts of the world. So these are some ideas
I hope might be suitable for discussion up here and
down there as time goes on, and I look forward
to that discussion. Thank you very much for
your attention, and now Dr. Coughlin on Driving
Miss Daisy Digitally. [APPLAUSE] COUGHLIN: Yes, I
am the lucky guy who’s standing between you and
the space station and lunch. And I’m going to talk
about you all getting old. So that’s a win-win
situation I think. While we’re setting
up the technology, one of the things I wanted
to have you think about is that as we think about
all the great achievements over the past 100 years. Remember when we are all
worried about the 2000 turnover and what it was going
to do to the computers. Well, we were also
making long lists of all the great technological
achievements, many of them here at MIT. We spoke of radar. We spoke of internet. We spoke of medical technology. We forgot one. Not just space travel, but
we also forgot about the fact that in 1900 life
expectancy was about 47. Today the fastest growing
part of the population is– and by the way, class
participation is 10%. I will call on you. –fastest growing part of
the population, 85 plus. So life expectancy now
is well into your 70s and probably you can expect even
better once you make that mark. And by the way, I
have this up just so I make sure that
one other person has the same hairstyle I do. [LAUGHTER] [APPLAUSE] So I’ll give you the good
news that our cartoon here can show you. About 106 years
to live for maybe some people in the future. But then it leaves
us with a paradox. And as President
Vest was talking about things that
were uniquely MIT, I think this is a
unique challenge that MIT helped
contribute to, and now we are uniquely charged to solve. And here it is. Now that you’re living longer,
what are you going to do? We rarely plan for success. We plan for public policy
to have some problems. We plan for
technology to be a try and fail and try and
succeed solution. But we never really thought this
longevity thing was actually going to work. So now that we’re living
longer, we have not even begun to think about where
you’re going to live, what are you going to
do, and how are you going to get around? And so I want to talk
to you about the how we’re going to get around part. However, before I
do that, the age lab of which I’m part
that we’re doing is basically the charge
that Sarah Knauss gave us. And she lived to 119 years old. And in fact if she had
lived a few more hours she would’ve spanned
three centuries. She died on December 31. Imagine that, 119 years. But she summed up I think
one of the greatest research challenges ahead of us
for the next 100 years. She enjoyed her longevity
because she had her health and she could do things. That’s it. Now that we’re
living longer we need to find ways to help people
maintain their health and help them do things. And that leaves us
to transportation because for all the
talk about the car and its problems
and the like, it is the thing that most of us,
particularly in North America, rely on. So here’s the class
participation part. What is transportation? I mean we’re talking about it. We’re spending the day to it. I can wait by the way. [LAUGHTER] Spoken like a true
civil engineer. Point A to point
B. Yeah, it is that and it’s a good way to model it. But think about it. Step out of your academic, your
research, perhaps many of you engineering hats,
and realize it’s far more that transportation
really is the very glue that allows you to get from
point A to point B, but more importantly to
connect all those little things that you take for granted
called life together. Going to the cleaners,
visiting your grandchild, doing all those things that
you really take for granted. So let me tell you
some of the people that we’ve done
research with about how they look at transportation,
and it is more than going from point A to point
B. They identify it as freedom, independence. And by the way, not having it
is handicapped or disabled; and by the way, transportation
in the United States, North America, and as we heard
from my colleagues earlier, increasingly around the
world is defined as driving. And by the way,
the license is now being called in the
gerontology literature as your personal
asphalt identikit. In other words, that
license is no longer just the thing that
when you got to be 16 it was your rite of passage. This is your sticker
that you are still independent and free
to do as you will. So let’s put the quotes to
the people we’ve done research with because we learn a
lot more from our subjects than many cases. Imagine the following
survey done in California a couple of years back. Top 10 fears. Being diagnosed with
a fatal disease. I’d say that’d be up
there, but think of this. Number two, losing
the ability to drive, which interesting to my
wife, was above a spouse being diagnosed with
a fatal disease. [LAUGHTER] And speaking as a son
it was also interesting that the financial
security of an adult child was after that as well. Responses from people
that we’ve talked to in the lab on the other hand– and this is where we think about
the problems with congestion pricing and the
future of the car. This is where the car
politics really comes down. One woman told us
that if she had to choose between steak
or eating soup every day to have her car, she’d eat soup. Now, for you women
this is the part one that I would be
most worried about. You can always get another
wife, but you can only get one driver’s license. And so it really tells
you what Miss and Mr. Daisy are thinking. But this is also the part of the
dilemma around the automobile that makes the technology, the
politics, also problematic, whether it’s here in North
America or around the world. This is not a
transportation question. This is a social, emotional,
independence and freedom issue. So if you just think broadly,
the population today is aging, is the fastest growing
part of the population, but its population
is more education, has greater health,
more income– by the way, women are going
to play a greater role. In fact there’s some
studies out there that show that women
have contributed to congestion in many ways. And I’ll talk about that perhaps
a little later at my own peril. –housing patterns,
contributing to our dilemma of meeting the car. Just very quickly, the
older population today– believe it or not, disability
rates one could argue are at least sestatic
or on the decline. The bottom line is
most people have at least a chronic disease,
but they’re managing them well and they’re continuing
to want to get out there. We’re having a longer period
of wellness if you will. Higher education. More people of college education
than ever before, more people are using the internet. In fact, one of the fastest
growing areas to retire in is not Florida,
Arizona, Las Vegas, or even someplace like Costa
Rica, but near a college campus to remain involved in those
activities of life learning and productive living. Larger incomes. Most of the people at 20% of
the population are 50 plus. They control the majority of
the income in the country. This is the same for most
of Europe as well as Japan. The bottom line is, that
think about the following. If you feel well, you have
some disposable income and you have education. And this is probably
not a very nice thing to say at an alumni
event in particular, but let’s not measure education
in terms of how many years you stayed in school,
but breadth of interests. So if you’ve got
all those things, you’re going to want to get out. You’re going to want
to do something. But there’s something
that we’ve never thought about in transportation
before that’s just happened in the last 20, 30 years. And that is, aging in
place is now taking place around the American dream. 50, 60 years ago the idea was
to move to Levittown, move to those towns that
were outside the city beyond the reach of
public transportation. Well, now what we’re
seeing are people are now aging in those places,
in many cases isolation, where, frankly, even if you
could walk two miles going to CVS on a Friday night
is not exactly a trip out. So public transportation,
it may be a good idea, but 70% of us in
the United States live beyond where transit
serves or where it serves well. And by the way, think
about the following. Public transportation is
very good for people who’ve used it all their lives,
but most Americans have not used it all their lives. And if you don’t
feel well enough to drive or you’re going to wake
up one day when you’re say 76 and say, you know, I’ll take the
bus, it’s not going to happen. And this is where I get to blame
my wife and her associates. Basically the next
generation of women are not going to be
like their mothers. Women today have more education
than men in many areas. They have greater incomes
than they’ve ever had before. And by the way, they are
the primary purchasers of new cars on
the markets today. The bottom line is they’re
going to be driving a lot more. And even if you look
at the data today, women do not drive
more miles than men, but they make more trips,
which is also the other problem around public transportation. It’s not a point A
to point B algorithm. It’s a matter of going from
the cleaners to the day care to grandchild to visit uncle
Joe, whoever it might be. So you put all these
things together and all of a sudden you start
to see that the population that is aging where we once
defined aging as retiring, staying home, golfing,
whatever it is, is going to at least drive
probably more miles than what we see today. And I find it funny that the
US Department of Transportation where these data are
from are suggesting that my wife and others
are going to drive about the same as their mothers. And I don’t think that’s
nearly going to be the case. So there’s a demand out
there for transportation, but there’s also a problem. The first chart on your left
is what we euphemistically call as the bathtub chart. And what this is is the
fatality rates by age group. Now, what the media like to do
is they like to look at that– particular when there’s
a tragic accident like Santa Monica a
year ago with the fellow who killed a number of
people in a farmer’s market. –they like to look at them they
say, oh my God, people over 75 and kids between 16 and
24, get them off the road. Well, I look at this
chart another way as we all know that lies
and statistics are not very far apart. The first one is
15 to 24 is proof that octane, testosterone,
and alcohol don’t mix. [APPLAUSE] 65 plus fatality
rate is also proof that the engineers of
today in the auto industry are designing the car for
essentially– well a little younger than me now. –the
5′ 10″ on a good day, 165 pound male. And if you’re smaller, frailer,
suffering from osteoporosis and sitting on top of
that wheel, you will die. And so this is a public
policy as well as an engineering challenge. The same data I showed you
before in terms of the demand for cars driving in
the future indicate that if we have a car
designed the way it is today and continue to have people
trained to drive the way they are today, that the
number of older adults that will die on American
highways will be exactly the same that we can
attribute to alcohol related deaths. 20,000 people on the road. That is 20,000 elderly
people on the road. Also, unfortunately,
whereas traffic safety has improved for much
of the population, the older population
has decreased. So really we’re looking
at an issue of cars not being designed for older
adults who want to drive more, cars that are not going to be
suitable for women in general, and also a desire frankly,
to get those numbers down for safety so that we can
continue to participate fully in life. That said, though, one of the
things we should think about– and this lady is 96-years-old. We interviewed her in Florida. She has herself tested
every year voluntarily. She drives a very
large Cadillac. I went for a ride with her. It was an interesting
experience. She did a good job. A little slower than
a Boston driver. And Ralph, I got very confused. Those pictures looked like they
were Boston traffic cutting people off that way. Self-regulation. This is how we govern
mobility in the United States. That is older adults essentially
take themselves off the road when they don’t
feel comfortable. Nighttime, bad weather, high
traffic, whatever it might be. And that’s one of the ways that
they keep themselves very safe and perhaps the rest
of us very safe. But also think about the
fact they’re denying travel. When you don’t go out you’re
denying part of your life. You’re not going out
to the show at night. You’re not going out to eat. You’re not visiting
your grandchild. Whatever it might be. But that is the primary
policy, if you will, of the United States. So let me introduce you
to the older driver. And before we go
much further we were talking about an older driver. What is an older driver? Give me a number. [LAUGHTER] Careful. See, no. Aging gets close real
soon, doesn’t it? Yeah. Older than I am is
usually a good answer. By the way, the typical answer
if you want to quantify this is 15 years older
than the respondent. [LAUGHTER] Well, let me tell you
about the older driver. By the way, the older driver
from an automobile standpoint is in your late 30s
because I can tell you that you need 20 times more
light to see at night by age 40 to see as well as
you did at age 20. So any questions about talking
about older drivers are getting pop off the road
may want to start a lot sooner than we think. But maybe not justified. So let’s talk about
reduced vision. Reduced of 45. By the way, 90% of us are
wearing bifocals by age 50. State of Arizona has decided
that aging begins at age 50 and started to regulate
older drivers at that age. If you look at the
picture on the right, this is what your
typical 20-year-old sees in a nighttime situation
versus a nighttime driving for a typical 60-year-old. Also, macular degeneration
is an increasing problem amongst older adults, whether
it’s wet or dry macular degeneration. And what starts to
happen is that you lose your central vision,
but as we age all of us start to lose our
useful field of view. So things start to
close in like this and you may start to have
a problem in between, making it very difficult
for that occasional bicycle or whatever it is
that may dart out. Impaired hearing. Isn’t this the cheery
part of the conversation? Impaired hearing
by 50% of us most are impaired with some
degree of hearing loss. Men in particular
have a real problem. It’s not that we’re not
listening to our wives. We often can’t hear. And as we talk about
the smarter car, one of the things that
a lot of us want to do is we want the talking car. You remember Nissan when they
came out with the door is ajar? Well, very quickly we’re looking
for the fuse box underneath. Well for men, it
was very difficult because they had put a woman’s
voice in there, higher pitch. Honest, we couldn’t hear
it and it was dropping out. So as we start to get older
we have a more difficult time hearing these things and
it makes it very difficult to make the car more
helpful in that way. Decreased strength
and flexibility. Truly, if you don’t
stay in shape and fit, it becomes more difficult
to turn that trunk. Left hand turns, the
number one accident that an older adult has
is making a left hand turn at an intersection. In part, it’s because it’s hard
to turn that neck all the way. They did look, but as we age, we
start to compensate and forget that we’re not turning
all the way to look. We’re not using the
mirrors as much. In addition, that
reduced strength makes the fact that that
airbag, by the way, which was credited with killing
a number of small children a number of years ago, one
of the things that did not come out in the media
is that the second part of the population that had
the highest fatality rate were older women sitting
on top of the wheel. So as they had osteoporotic
frames and the like, when that airbag came
out, that reduced strength and flexibility to get
out of the way or move ended up killing and injuring them. Well, attention and
perception, this is the part that most have not
focused on with the automobile. And that is is that as we
age, our ability to maintain or manage, if you will,
the cognitive load– the things going on outside,
the noisy kids in the back, perhaps the radio,
the cell phone– the other issue is let’s go
back to that left hand turn. Believe it or not, there
is some data out there to suggest that men and
women do drive differently. And I can make a lot
of jokes around that. There is no scientific
evidence about men not being able to use maps. Just the willingness to
use them is in question. But for instance, at
that left hand turn, men have a very good shot
at judging speed, far better than women do. On the other hand, women seem
to have a far better idea at the distance. Either way, at that left hand
turn, both are at a deficit. And often what
you’ll see is people what we call co-piloting. One’s driving, the
other one’s advising. And in some cases,
it’s a coping strategy that I’m not sure
I would advocate. So let’s talk about
what can technology do. I mean, after all, we
always looked at technology as the silver bullet. There is a part of
Western political culture, that belief that technology
is going to solve it. We just have to work hard
at it and work around it. Well, this is the
third age driving suit that Ford developed
a number of years ago to take the average
27-year-old engineer and to give him the cheery
feelings of neuropathy in their feet, reduced haptic
strength and flexibility in their hands, vision,
and said, OK, now drive. What the car companies
are looking at now is the convergence, if you
will, of multiple information technologies– intelligent
transportation systems such as Dan Roos was
speaking about earlier– bringing more
intelligence to the car. Enabling, for instance,
the night vision. Some of you may have this
in some of your vehicles, enabling you to see in poor
weather or at nighttime, things that you would have a more
difficult time to see. Collision warning
systems, again, with the voice telling
you that you’re either getting too close or someone
is getting too close to you. The difficulty is, as your
bandwidth between the ears begins to reduce, the car
companies and engineering innovations out there are
asking us to bring more and more into the car. So here’s the
challenge ahead of us. Is it possible in some cases
that technology can be too much of a good thing? And as Toyota put
here, if you can see the advertisement
there says, engineers tend to get
bored making cup holders. Well, the idea here now
is we’re trying to put as much gadgetry in the car– navigation systems,
collision warning systems. Very soon you’re going to be
driving by your local shopping mall. They’re going to have the zip
code your car’s registered in, the driver’s license, whether
you’re male or female, and your relative age. And lo and behold,
you’re going to get an advertisement in your car
from Brooks Brothers, Ann Taylor, whomever you
think it might be. Well, problem now is how do you
design all these things that may very well be
innovative and be able to manage the very
challenges that older drivers present to the
engineering community into the car companies. Because here’s the paradox. These innovations are not going
to go into the Ford Focus. They’re going to go into the
high end platforms, the Lexus, the Cadillac, the Buick. Who buys those? The 50 plus. So the very first guinea
pigs for the new technology are those who have developed
a 40 or 50 year mental model of how to drive the old way. So let’s talk about the real
estate and design issue. This is a 2001 and a
2002 Taurus dashboard. Same equipment package. One of the things that you
find out with older drivers that younger drivers have a
bit of this difficulty as well, but as we age and our vision
becomes more difficult, we have a different timing
on how to find something on the dashboard. It’s called target time. So where’s the knob,
find it, turn it, go back to the driving task. Same equipment
package on this dash. However, the car
companies are actually– Ford in this case–
is having a challenge of do you spread it out, which
means while you’re driving you’re trying to look and scan. Or do you put in
one place, which means you’re trying to
look and sort it out? So there’s really
no quick solution on what that ideal
design should be. Data fusion or confusion? As we bring more and
more things into the car, are we actually challenging that
perception problem that older adults have, and in some cases,
younger adults– you know, younger adults, in some of
the research we’ve done with warning systems, for
instance, in the vehicle– do not have a advantage
over older people using technology in the car. Older adults have
something that none of us have until we get to
be older, experience. They have judgment. Well, there’s a problem
with the technology. It’s not that they don’t
want the technology. It’s that when a
warning goes off, we’ve found that
older people want to like pause and look around. I didn’t see why the
warning went off. Why did it go off? Younger people,
on the other hand, have such a belief
in the technology that when it goes off, that’s
the only time they look. Or they don’t look at all. They wait until the
warning goes off. So if one day that
technology doesn’t work– and I know that all of you
believe that it’s always 100% effective– you could have a toddler
or a trike behind the car. And people were now
finding in our simulation, as well as on road tests,
that are stopping and not looking any longer
versus the older drivers are being distracted by
looking for that technology as to why it’s gone off at all. So do we design
an old man’s car? Absolutely not. As the adage in the
auto industry goes, you don’t design
an old man’s car because a young
man won’t buy it. But frankly, neither
will a young man. Or an old man, as well. So what we’re doing
at the lab– and this is Miss Daisy, a Volkswagen bug. Basically, there were three
reasons why we had it. One, it was relatively small
until we got it in the room. And as you know, parking
at MIT, the problem– and this continues,
continues the tradition of putting cars in strange
places at the Institute. One, it was relatively small. Two, better yet, it was free. And three, could
you think of a car that was more symbolic of the
aging Baby Boom population? So this is our platform to
try to better understand the ultimate design of
technology and the older driver to do something that we
really need to do, get around. I don’t care whether
it’s car, by foot, by public transportation,
but you’re not living until you can visit
all those little activities that you call life. And hope to translate
that longer life and driving to look
something like this. Thanks you very much. VEST: Joe, if you and
Ralph will please come over to the side of the stage. Thank you for those
wonderful presentations. I was reminded of an interview I
read about a few years ago when this remarkable older woman in
France, who was way over 100, who remembered Vincent van Gogh
as young girl and so forth, was asked by a reporter, what
do you think about the future. And her answer was,
it will be short. So we’re going in
the same format. We’ve got about 10 or 12
minutes for questions. Those of you who have questions,
please get behind the mics. Keep them to 30 seconds. And let’s keep on that track. Sir. AUDIENCE: Ignoring the issues
of the wildly overcrowding of the roads in
India and China– look like they have already,
not even moving in the future– what’s your projected impact on
oil consumption in the world? I mean, the Saudis have come
up with two extra million barrels a day just to keep
our prices down a little bit. What’s going to happen when
China triples their consumption and India does the same? GAKENHEIMER: Oh, it’s
going to be imported. I really don’t have a
commentary on that question. I work mostly at
the urban level. And there are people here,
particularly Ernie Muniz, who probably would have a better
answer for that than I would. So I’m going to defer. VEST: Yes? AUDIENCE: Hi. I’m curious when automobile
driving will really become automatic in
the sense that we’ll be able to sit back
and read a newspaper and really let the technology
completely take over and take us from
point A to point B? COUGHLIN: I don’t if you saw
it, it just came out this week, Bob Lutz was credited– design
guru in the auto industry– was credited with making
the commentary that he sees it coming very soon. And he has declared
driving is dead, which was very
interesting because he didn’t have that position a few
years ago when he took the job. The problem I see
is that whether it’s the older population or
the younger population, one of things that
we forget about is that often driving
is for enjoyment. And even if we can move beyond
that because driving is getting less and less enjoyable
with congestion and all the things that
go along with that, it’s not just a matter
of whether the car can drive itself. The infrastructure is that
other part of the equation. And we may be able to
do it for interstates. We may be able to do
it for Memorial Drive. But the places we go to tend
to be so intricate of a pattern that it’s probably going
to take a number of decades similar to what
it took to create the American dream in
suburbia to make that happen. VEST: Yes, sir. AUDIENCE: Thank you very much. As one who thought
it was a good idea to require a driver’s test
when you’re 75 and then was pretty much insulted
when I had to take it, I ask a question, what do you
see out there now available? Is there anything, I’m going
to be buying a new car a year or two, what could I look for
now that is focused on some of this? Or do you think that
it’s going to be off three or four years before
you have some of these devices and things you’re talking about,
even if it is a high end car? COUGHLIN: A lot of
the technologies are out there, the
collision warning systems and the like, extended mirrors. The problem is is
that as consumers, we have to do our research. Despite the fact the
50 plus population has the majority of
disposable income, the auto industry
loathes to talk to us. And so the bottom
line is you’re going to have to do your own homework
to find out what’s out there. And more importantly,
you’re going to have to teach yourself
or find a driver education school to teach you how
to use those devices and those technologies. Because the dealers just
simply don’t know how to do it. AUDIENCE: This relates
to urban engineering. Isn’t it true that the largest
waste, underlying waste, of fuel comes from stopped
and stopping automobiles? And this is a
measurable quantity. GAKENHEIMER: That’s
certainly the case. Yeah. And the consequence
is that opportunities for making traffic more
efficient through something like congestion pricing
and by other means through driver advisory
electronics and so forth are possibilities for ultimately
saving some fuel consumption. VEST: Yes. AUDIENCE: Well, there was
considerable discussion this morning on the more
increasingly crowded driving environment in
developing countries. One solution that I didn’t
hear mentioned at all was population control. That is, to limit
population growth or maybe even allow
it to decrease. And I welcome your
comments on that. GAKENHEIMER: These are, ain’t
easy questions to answer. Of course, the Chinese are
very good at population control and have restricted
families to one child. And this has
resulted in the fact, of course, that those
increases in GNP, in total GNP are very telling. Because that GNP is not spread
over a large population. But looking over the whole– and of course, the Indian family
is not getting any smaller. So there is a difference
in the future suggested by those considerations. There is a whole bunch
of different sort of third and fourth
level issues here. One of them is the control
of city size, which was once a popular concern, but generally
speaking has dropped out in favor of other things. The overall concern
for population control, the consequences
that AIDS will have on African populations and
the growth of transportation problems in that region is also
a subject worth considering. And it nonetheless
appears to be the case that large urban
populations are present, population control in general
doesn’t affect them very much. Because even in
places like China where the population
is not growing, the cities are because of a
rural to urban movement that’s bound to continue. And as the administration
becomes more, less forceful, will be further accelerated. So it’s a situation where the
principal controls, I believe, are primarily on getting a grip
on the land use possibilities in order to have a geometry
that’s easily served by contemporary technologies
on the one hand, and using techniques that
require more socially effective use of automobiles,
such as congestion pricing on the other. And incidentally, I
don’t expect that to have any consequence at all,
as sometimes suggested, on the reduction of the
purchase of motor vehicles. In fact, it could
even incentivize them because it provides
the possibility for using a car under
circumstances that if you’re willing to pay a
small congestion price rather than being stuck
in traffic all the time. VEST: Yes. AUDIENCE: There is
certainly some opportunity for removing some
cars from the road through people having a rental
car for a period of time when they need to use it. And instead of having two cars,
there’s zip cars, of course. Wouldn’t it be
good public policy to provide a lot
of public education on the options
that are available. I think a lot of people would
use more options if they were educated about them. GAKENHEIMER: Both of us could
answer, attempt to answer that. Education is certainly
extremely important. And concentrated efforts
to educate people are in programs I could
mention all over the world, trying to educate children
to cope with traffic better in order to avoid
accidents with children, educating cyclists in order
to stop creating problems of the sort I described,
educating motorists to take advantage of
driver advisory systems, and possibly taking advantage
of Zipcar-like systems. Although they are not as
easily adapted to America as they were to Europe
because they basically assume a quite substantial
public transport system useful for most of the
trips of a person who gives up his car. And it also has problems in
the developing world where there are a lot of
unlicensed drivers and other complications. But certainly, education
is extremely important. COUGHLIN: A piece
of work we’re doing that plays into
that, by the way, is also to what point, to what
matter is transportation part of your retirement planning. We’ve defined retirement
in this country around your health
insurance and your 401k. Well, retiring
someplace where there are no alternatives other than
the community van may make you, essentially sentence
you to isolation in the very symbol of
your success, your home, is several miles from anywhere. VEST: Bob? AUDIENCE: Obviously, the
capacity of the urban highway system is not adequate
for peak loads, but is adequate for
other times of day. And we heard more about the
hot lanes and these things. What kind of
capacity increase is latent in the system if we do
a lot of electronic information system kind of work, as
we were hearing about? And it strikes me as it would
be a lot cheaper per mile to do that than to try to
build another lane of highways in cities. GAKENHEIMER: Certainly a
lot cheaper to do that. In the case of something like
congestion prices, of course, you can choose your own number. And the level of
traffic more or less corresponds inversely to
the amount of the charge. In Singapore, for example, they
tried widely different levels for a long period of time
until they basically fine tuned the situation to the
level where, in Singapore, there is basically no
congestion at any time in the center of the city. Sounds like somebody disagrees. Maybe it’s changed
since the last I saw it. But in any case, it’s a whole
different scene, I assure you, than places where
there’s no control. So the whole question of how
much congestion can be reduced is frankly in the hands of the
graduation of leverage on that. And basically, the limit
is political rather than anything else. The question is, how much will
the voter tolerate an increased charge of using a
congested street to the extent necessary
to make a significant gain on congestion. AUDIENCE: I very much
appreciate your pointing out that to an older person,
the ability to move around is everything. But I think it’s true
of all age groups. The car appears to appeal
to something visceral in the human psyche no
matter where people are or how much money they have. And so it appears that in
effect what we’re seeing is engineers have overdone the job. We’ve made the automobile
too attractive. And we’re using it at a rate
which is not sustainable. And therefore, we’re trying
to look, as engineers, we have no engineering solution. We’re looking to the
politicians to bail us out by raising taxes to make cars
artificially unattractive so people will use them
at a sustainable rate. That sounds, everything
you’re saying sounds like a confession of
failure as a technologist. And you’re saying we’re
talking about public policy here to get us
out of a situation that we engineers have
created for ourselves. Is that more or less how you
people interpret the situation? GAKENHEIMER: I don’t know how
to respond to that question except that you simply, you
pretty much have the equation right, I think. But we’re waiting for you to
suggest to the manufacturers to make vehicles
less attractive. COUGHLIN: The other part of that
is that science and engineering is never done. It’s evolutionary. So we just do the next step. VEST: One last question. AUDIENCE: Well, maybe part of
that can be answered by this question or maybe it can’t. I don’t know. But at any rate, an
automobile is two things. It’s a container for
you and your possessions and your friends. And it’s an piece of apparatus
to move that container and provide it with
power to do so. And therefore, can we
separate those two? Maybe the container can
be moved by rubber tires. Maybe it can be moved
by a flatbed truck. Maybe it can be moved by rail. Maybe it can move by the water. GAKENHEIMER: There have been
various initiatives attempting to create extremely high density
guide ways, which transfer the box to a train-like function
once it’s on a main corridor, and then permitting it to
return to independent operation once it reaches its destination. The problems, I
think, is first, it’s not clear how much
that would actually improve total capacity. But secondly, that it would
require a difficult transition. It couldn’t be
transitioned incrementally. It would require
the public to buy large amounts of automobiles
capable of those two bimodal performances
all at once in order to make the
infrastructure worthwhile and the space it
occupies worthwhile. VEST: Did so well we’ll take
one final really quick question. AUDIENCE: This is for
Joe Coughlin, primarily. I belong to that group that
believes that older drivers are about 15 years older than me. But I have to confess, I have
noticed my diminishing acuity. And so I take it seriously. You described the problems
that older drivers have behind the wheel. What would you say are the
two or three most promising developments that are
coming along that will make that a lot better? COUGHLIN: Probably
the vision enhancement such as night vision is one. Because the number one thing
that older drivers complain about, indeed have
a difficult time with is with night vision
and contrast sensitivity. Secondly would be
some of the collision systems that are
coming out there to help judge
speed and distance. Although there’s a lot of bugs
to be gotten out of there. I’m sure that the
legal community will make their fair share of money
on the systems when they do not work. And then third, always
look to low tech as being your first
order of defense. One is really look
for those mirrors, pedal extensions,
seat adjustments that will make the car that you live
in today, if you will, safer so you can move around tomorrow. VEST: Next year, when
someone else is president, we are going to have a session
at Technology Day on congestion pricing for population control. But in the meantime,
please thank our speakers. I’m very pleased at this time to
introduce a very special guest, Lieutenant Colonel Michael Fink
of the United States Air Force. Mike will be with us
shortly through a link from the International
Space Station. A member of the class of 1989. And while we regret,
while we regret that he is not physically here
for the 15th reunion events, we are very fortunate
that he will be joining us virtually this morning. At MIT, Mike was
an Air Force ROTC– Hi, Mike. This is Chuck Vest
down here on Earth. He holds a dual SB in
Aeronautics and Astronautics in Earth Atmospheric
and Planetary Sciences. He went through
the Russian program and spent a summer in the
Aviation Institute in Moscow. He entered the Air
Force after earning a master’s degree in
Aero-Astro at Stanford in 1990. He was chosen by Nasa to
become an astronaut in 1996, one of only 35 candidates
selected from 2,400 applicants. He headed for a
six month mission on the International
Space Station in mid-April aboard a Soyuz rocket
launched from Kazakhstan. He spent four years in
training with his crewmate, Russian cosmonaut
Gennady Padalka. Excuse me. Mike and Commander
Padalka have had full schedules while in
space, with a workload just about the same as that
of a normal three person team. They will perform two
spacewalks over the summer as they ready the space
station to receive a cargo ship from the European Space Agency. Mike, welcome to your reunion. I wonder if you could
just explain to us a little bit of the goals of
the International Space Station. FINK: President Vest, thank
you very much for your kind introduction. I’d like to check our coms. Can you hear me? VEST: We can hear you very well. FINK: Well, when we were
setting this up with NASA, they were wondering
if we’d be able to get a good audio and video. And I can see you guys great. I’m glad you guys can hear me. And I said if anybody could
do great audio and video, it’s MIT. Thank you very much. The International
Space Station is symbolic of what
human beings can do when we work
together constructively and not destructively. It’s a great aerospace
engineering enterprise. And it’s also a good
place to do science. And I’ve personally been
amazed the difference in fluids and other materials in freefall
or microgravity environment than I expected, even
though I had all the physics background– thanks to MIT– to understand what was
supposed to be going on. But it’s absolutely amazing when
surface tension is much more of a factor than say gravity. So there’s so many interesting
things that we can do up here. And Gennady and I
are working hard to try to succeed with the
mission of the International Space Station. And you mentioned workload. This is nothing compared
to what Unified was about. VEST: I understand,
Colonel, that one of the experiments
you’re working on involves tiny satellites
developed by the MIT Space Systems Laboratory. Could you give us a
little bit about that? FINK: Absolutely. First off, the MIT folks came
in and like normal, regular MIT folks, they had all their,
they had their act together. They had a really
outstanding plan that they thought
outside the box. And I can say that
NASA needs more people like that to work on our
programs and such payloads. The MIT [INAUDIBLE] program
is absolutely amazing. It’s pure three body
motion, dynamics, control systems in action. And not only that,
it also offer– let me describe it first. First, these are a
series of small spheres. And small being maybe the size
of a soccer ball or a football. And they’re about, they’re
round and they can float around and they have active
control systems. And that’s pretty important. My [INAUDIBLE] system
isn’t always very good up here in space even though
I’ve been up here a month and a half already. It’s still tough to stay in
the same spot constantly. But in addition,
not only are they going to try to fly one
little sphere around, but there are
spheres in formation. And this is all with an active
ultrasound control system. Ultrasound gives the
awareness of the environment. And these are the
kinds of things that we need help with
aboard the space station, especially if we
only have two people. But even if we
have six or seven, these spheres can
actually, eventually, the same kind of control
laws can really help us. For example, even if we
took one of these outside, we don’t have the
ability to take a look at all of our spacecraft
with our cameras onboard. So if we need to know
what’s going on the outside, sometimes we have
to send out people. And that takes a
lot of overhead. But if we could
send out a sphere, even if it’s a little bit of
artificial intelligence on it, and say, hey, go check out
that port starboard camera or go look at that
antenna for us, that’ll be a great help for us. So this is a very
exciting project. And I’m glad to be part of it. VEST: Thank you. Mike, of course, one of the
great things about the space station, and specifically
about the work that you and your
Russian colleague are doing at the moment, is
its international nature. I wonder if you could
comment a little bit through your experience on how
the space station has worked as an international
collaboration and what you see for the
future in that regard. FINK: Well, that’s one
of my favorite talking points of all time. And there’s a lot of things
I want to say about that. But first, I want to say that
MIT set me up very nicely in my career and
in my life to be ready for this next
wave of globalization that we’re
experiencing right now. This morning’s program,
you guys talked about the automobile industry. And I think you’re talking
about that a little bit more this afternoon. The automobile industry was
one of the first trendsetters for multinational
corporations, multinational and globalization. To some people,
these are bad things. I think it’s a
really good thing. It really shows what we
can do working together beyond a national borders. The International Space
Station is a symbol but it’s also practical. Well, let me tell you,
when I got here in 1996, the experience I had
through MIT and the exchange program with Moscow, the
Asian Institute, NASA snapped me right up and threw
me straight over to Russia. And we started working some
of the issues of how to run an International Space Station. Needing parts and pieces that
were built in one country, first time that they ever
met and worked with the other parts– like say two modules– was not on the ground, which
is how we like to do things in the aerospace business. You know, test, test,
test, and then fly. Well, we, first time a lot
of these modules ever worked with each other was up in space. And I used to think
only in Star Trek that things worked
right the first time. But with the space
station, it showed that with careful
organization and planning, we can make these
things work correctly. And that human beings,
we really are starting to understand our technology. And that the lessons that
we’ve learned working together with our Russian partners,
with our European partners and our Japanese
partners can really set the stage for expanding
human presence in the skies and on the way to
the moon and to Mars. VEST: Thank you, Mike. The following question,
I don’t mean at all in a political sense. But I think it’s
really important. As you know, the nation is
about to recommit itself to the concept of
space exploration, with a big emphasis on
the word exploration. And that has triggered
down here on Earth a lot of debate about
the relative merits of human spaceflight
for exploration and robotic or technological
spaceflight for science. I will personally state
that I believe we need both. And getting the balance
right is very important. I wonder if you
could share with us a little bit of your
observations on how the human and robotic space
program’s balance together. FINK: I personally agree with
you that we do need both. We can’t do one
without the other. There are some proponents of
a pure robotics [INAUDIBLE].. And this is an old
argument, of course. And our robots are
getting better and better. And that’s really good. That’s going to be helpful. But we can’t really do it,
they can’t do everything that human beings can do. And my commander and I
are an example of that. We have a power supply that
controls one of our control moment gyroscopes. And it kind of went out. And right now robots
couldn’t go out and fix it. Gennady and I can, and we
give that extra capability to the space station. So we need to have
a balance of both. And as we explore, we
really need to have both. For example, when we went to the
moon, every place that we went was carefully mapped
out by robot explorers. And there are some MIT grads
over the Jet Propulsion Laboratory who are
exploring Mars ahead of time for the humans that
are about to come. And this is the strength
of MIT, of course. They’re working with
their teammates that come from other universities, too. But we’re here at the
forefront of it and some of us are from the class of ’89. VEST: A lot of applause. Colonel, are there
any other things that you would like
to say to those of us who are gathered here? Any messages that you
would like to pass along to your fellow MIT alumni? FINK: I miss MIT. 15 years ago, and everybody who
is an alumnus in front of me said, you know, it goes by fast. And boy, it really does. And I’m sure I’ll probably feel
that way after 20 and 25 years. But the nice thing
about having time is it’s given me a little
bit of perspective. And the view we have on
the planet from up here gives me some more perspective. And what MIT does
is very important. The mission of MIT,
the way that MIT goes about teaching
its students, and the way that MIT is not
afraid to be world class, these are very important
things to the entire planet. And so I’d like to
suggest to the alumni, and challenge the class
of 1989, to contribute towards MIT a little bit more. Nobody paid me to say that. This comes from my heart. And I wish I, at some time,
selected a profession that paid more so that I could give more. But really, what we’re doing
is very important at MIT. And it’s important
for the entire planet. I truly, sincerely believe that. And I’d like to
thank my classmates for ending this
reunion and letting me have some time here today. And I’d like to thank the people
that put this video conference together because I
really was sad I couldn’t come to this year’s reunion. VEST: Mike, if you’ll
forgive me for making a brief kind of
personal comment, I had the great
honor back in 1994 of serving for a
year as chairman of a presidential committee
on the redesign of the space station. And that group,
among other things, worked together with NASA to
make this a truly international venture and to change the
orbital inclination so that you would, in fact, be
able to get access from Baikonur via the Soyuz. And I think my colleagues
who came up and worked on those ideas would
be as proud today as I am to have had a
little piece of this. It’s just a real thrill
to talk to you out there. We’re very grateful. And you stand as just
a remarkable role model for the young men and
women studying here at MIT to think about the
potential that is out there. So if you have any last closing
comments, now’s the time. But we all then are going
to thank you enormously for participating with us today. FINK: You have built a
beautiful, incredible space station. And I’d like to thank you,
President Vest, for your work on the space station. It really is really an
incredible piece of machinery, incredible piece of
engineering, a great symbol for what human beings can do. And it’s a great laboratory. And we’re working hard
aboard and on the ground to realize the full potential
of the space station. Things are going slower
than we expected. But that’s the nature
of engineering. That’s the nature of technology. But we’re not going to give up. And we’re going to continue
on with the space station’s mission. And the young men
and women of today have a great potential future. And places like
MIT can really help them realize that potential. MIT helped me
realize my potential and I’ll forever be grateful. So thank you for letting me
appear in front of you today. And it’s a real
joy and pleasure. And I just wish I
were there in person. President Vest,
thank you very much. And thanks to all
the people that put this conference together. VEST: Well, that was
one huge message to you, wishing you well, thanking
you for what you’re doing for the nation, the world,
and wishing you a safe journey home. We hope to see you here
on campus next year. Thank you. MCKAY: Wow. Unbelievable. Can you imagine? I was asked if I could
somersault onto the stage since I needed to follow that. Joe, be thankful you
don’t need to follow this. Well, we’ve got another
first for Tech Day here to usher us into lunch. This is a 15 second audience
participation segment. So all you folks on the
left, when I do this, you’re going to go vroom. Shall we try it? AUDIENCE: Vroom. MCKAY: Pretty good. Keep it short, a
little more diaphragm. Not bad. You folks over here on my
right, you’re going to go erp. AUDIENCE: Erp. MCKAY: Pretty good. All right. AUDIENCE: Vroom. Erp. Vroom. Erp. Vroom. Erp. MCKAY: Now that’s an
original composition. I call it 1,000 freshmen
at a flashing red light. Thank you for holding
your groans until the end. That’s good. So I’m Keith McKay. I’m the chair of the
Tech Day committee. And I’m told we have a
record turnout here today. And we really want to
thank you for that. Those of you who are alumni
know the phrase IHTFP. Many of you have stated
this, some of you at the top of your lungs. And after I graduated, I came
up with my own personal variant of this, which is Institute
has the finest people. And you know it’s been exhibited
this morning by our panelists, by Beth Garvin, by President
Chuck Vest, by Colonel Fink, and I really want
to thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. It’s also been exhibited by Lou
Alexander of the alumni office, who was the guide
for our committee and who really made
all of this happen. And by my alumni colleagues
on the committee, Kimberly Ann Frances, Mindy Garber, Kim
Hunter, Leon Katz, Bill Laich, Eric Peterson, Mary Schaefer,
David Stork, Cherica Valla, and Doug Vincent, who will
serve as next year’s chair. It’s been a real pleasure
to serve with you all. And you can see
what kind of a group it takes to make
this all happen. If you know a committee member,
thank them, and then tell them how to top this
program next year. If you don’t know
a committee member, jot your ideas on the
survey and fill in the rest while you’re at it. That’s in your packet. As you might expect
of an MIT group, we do actually read the
surveys and use them as a feedback mechanism to
help improve the program. But it’s, you know,
it’s a feedback system. It’s a collaborative system. It only works if you
fill out the forms. So thank you for doing that. Finally, there are two
housekeeping announcements and a teaser for this afternoon. And I’ll let you get to lunch. So the lunch is in the tent. Actually, I’m sorry, it’s
in Johnson Athletic Center. Correct? So round to the left, building
over here, you can’t miss it. Lunch runs from 12:30 to 2 PM. Number two, we’ve
been lucky enough to get some vehicles from
Selectria and from the MIT solar powered car team for
our own mini car show outside. So you should enjoy those
after stepping outdoors. And if you found this morning
as fascinating as I did, you’ll all want to
return this afternoon for more shifting gears. We don’t have breakout
lectures like we’ve often had in the past. But rather another
panel that will explore, based on some of
the problems of this morning, where this is all going
or where it might go. Now Garrison Keillor
said that an education is like four wheel drive. You just get stuck in
more remote places. And this afternoon,
our panelists will help us to test
that hypothesis. I guarantee you’re all going to
walk away with some new ideas to explore. And join me here. Enjoy the car show and
your lunch and we’ll see you back here
this afternoon. GARVIN: Good afternoon. That work? Yay. I found out the role of the
executive vice president is just to test
the sound system. That’s the only
reason I’m up here. I was struck this morning
when Derry Capsinel mentioned that he had an electric car. My husband and I were some
of the first lucky owners to get the first Prius when it
came out in the United States. And I just wondered if
there are other people here who are driving hybrids
or electric cars or anything else perceived
as an alternative vehicle. How many do we have? It is not an uncommon
sight on the MIT campus to see a Prius these days. The lot I park in,
were up to three. And that’s a lot
of about 30 cars. So I think we are early
adapters to these things and I’m proud to
be part of that. It’s my pleasure to introduce
our afternoon moderator. We’re very privileged to have
Norman Augustine here with us to play that role today. As I think almost
all of you know, he is the retired Chairman
and CEO of Lockheed Martin and has been not
a stranger to MIT campus as a former member
of the MIT Corporation. He will lead us
through the afternoon. And without further ado, Norman. AUGUSTINE: Well,
I had no idea when Chuck asked me to do
this that he was here to bring a bunch of astronauts
in as part of his show. He’s a tough person to follow. There was an engineer
who was streaking down the highway in his brand new
bright red hybrid vehicle sports car. He looked at the
rear view mirror and to his utter amazement, he
saw this three legged chicken racing and coming
up right behind him. This chicken passed
him, went around him, and went into a barn. So he stopped,
pulled off the road, went over by the barn
where there was a farmer. He said to this farmer,
you know, that’s amazing. I thought I saw a
three legged chicken. Farmer said, well, you did. He said, we like
drumsticks around here. Said, we’ve been doing a lot
of research and development, been pretty successful. The engineer said, you
know, I’m astounded. He said, how do they taste? Farmer said, dunno,
we never caught one. Now that’s a pathetic way to
introduce the afternoon topic. I had to reach. But we’ve been doing a lot
of research and development. We’ve gotten some
very high performance. But almost no one
has caught one yet. And so we want to
talk a little bit about the prospects for new
ideas and the possibility that they will become
more commonly used. Chuck gave his credentials
as a car owner. As an aeronautical engineer, I
probably need to do that too. I have six cars. And included in them are a
beautiful, bright red 1969 Corvette Stingray and a bright
red 1969 Mustang Grande. And they fill the garage
so my new Mercedes sits out in the snow and the rain. I have to confess,
at this weekend when I went around trying
to start them, three of them wouldn’t start. All of which proves,
as you all know, that they say about people
that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Well, engineers believe
that if it ain’t broke, it doesn’t have
enough features yet. My first car was a 1959,
beautiful gull-wing Chevrolet. You remember that? And I’ve never
forgiven Life Magazine. They put out an issue on the
10 ugliest cars in history. We finished second. The fact is, though,
that very few people can argue that the automobile
has an enormous impact on our lives today. Certainly, it’s
improved the lifestyles for many, many people. Just one example, I happened
to notice just yesterday a copy of one of these
magazines that puts out a list of the largest, in their
words, manufacturing companies in the world. And their list of the largest
manufacturing companies, let me read you the
first dozen names. And as I read about them, think
about what they have in common. The order goes as follows, Exxon
Mobile, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, General Motors, Daimler
Chrysler, Ford, Toyota, General Electric got on
there somehow, Total, Chevron Texaco, Volkswagen,
and Conoco Phillips. Not hard to see the
impact of the automobile on the way we live. But as we all know,
there’s always another side to the coin. Sadly, on the order
of 3,000 people will die today in automobile
accidents around the world. In Los Angeles alone,
some 400,000 person years will be wasted this year
due to traffic congestion. I read a couple of years ago
that today, or at that time, the average speed in traveling
through central London on a weekday was exactly
what it was in 1850. Also, cars, SUVs, and
other light vehicles produce about 16% of
the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases that are produced in the United States. And as we know, our
appetite for oil makes us vulnerable
to actions of people throughout some of the most
contentious areas of the world. I serve on the board
of a petroleum company and I’ve come up with another of
Augustine’s widely unremembered laws. This one says that political
instability creates oil bearing geological formations. That’s my second newest law. I’ll throw in the other one
that I have a lot of data on. And that is that tornadoes
are caused by trailer parks. But it all gets much more
complicated than this. And it will get more
complicated in the future. It’s been estimated
that there will be 70 million new cars,
additional cars on US highways 15 years from now. And as Dan Roos pointed
out to us this morning so well, that if
we’re to solve this we have to view it
as a systems problem that it indeed is because
of the many couplings that tie to the automobile. Just yesterday, I saw
an example that a friend of mine who lives not far
from the Newark Airport came down to see
me in Washington. And it turned out he
drove his car down. And when I asked
him about that, he said that his answer was, he
said that airline flight has become so unpleasant, he
said I’ve extended my no fly zone from 200 to 500 miles. And as more and more people
do that, we’re going to see, I think, more and
more complications in our traffic patterns. Well, this afternoon we’re going
to hear some answers about what we should do about all this. We’ve got two of the most
qualified people I can possibly imagine, both happily
who’ve been friends of mine, and two people that I have such
great respect for their ability to think out of the box. You probably would know them. They will be speaking in our
order, Ernie Moniz and Dean Kamen. Just a very brief
introduction so that I don’t take much of their time. Ernie, of course, is a professor
of physics and director of energy studies in the
Laboratory for Energy and Environment here at MIT. He previously served our
country as Undersecretary of the Department of Energy
and as Associate Director for Science in the Office of
Science and Technology Policy. And previously, he was head
of the physics department here at MIT. To give you an idea of the
diversity of his background, he is a Fellow of the
American Association for the Advancement
of Science and also a member of the Council
on Foreign Relations. Our second speaker, Dean Kamen. Dean is probably the
most innovative person I’ve ever run across, an
inventor extraordinaire. He is the inventor
of the Segway vehicle that I’m sure you’ve seen
a great deal of on TV. In fact, Dean and I saw one
driving down the sidewalks in Washington yesterday. We heard this morning about
how many countries are going from two wheels to four. Dean is trying to take
America from four to two. That’s how far ahead he is. Dean’s diverse contributions
range all the way from dialysis machines
to transporters that are capable of climbing stairs. Perhaps the thing he will
be most remembered for, or at least that he should
be the most remembered for in my opinion, was that he
founded an organization called First, the intention of
which is to encourage young people, young boys and
girls to become interested in science, technology, and to
pursue careers in those fields. And hopefully he’ll
tell us a little bit about that when he speaks. Dean holds the National
Medal of Technology presented by the President
of the United States. So with those introductions, let
me turn to our first speaker. Ernie, the platform is yours. MONIZ: Thank you, Norm. In fact, having our
two sessions today chaired by Norm and by Chuck
Vest reminds me that, certainly when I was in the government
until roughly noon on January 20, 2001, that Chuck and Norm
were a fantastic one-two punch in Washington for
promoting basic science, promoting university
government partnerships. Chuck kind of invented the role
of the university president speaking for this
national interest. And Norm was kind of the
articulate, private sector industry spokesmen. And they were very,
very critical voices at that time for
supporting basic research. So thanks again, Norm, for
that that support back then. Anyway, let’s turn
to the business. And I will start with some truth
in advertising of this title in my talk, which is
really a string of nouns– oil, security,
environment, technology. And I will be focusing more on
the fuel side of the equation. And I must confess the
truth in advertising is that, frankly, this
talk or a good part of it is really the most
non-disruptive technology discussion that you
will hear today. It perhaps should be
called the persistence of oil, more or less the
perfect transportation fuel, as John Heywood alluded
to this morning. And but also
discussing the forces that may or may
not ultimately curb our increasing reliance on oil. So let’s start with
the praises of oil. As a reference point, we can
go to the kind of folk music library and recall John
Henry, the steel driving man, who took on the steam hammer. Now we’re going to do some 801. I’m sure you all remember
final year, 801 arithmetic. So let’s say that John
Henry lifts his 10 kilogram sledgehammer 3 meters
every 3 seconds for 10 hours. That’s a pretty good day’s work. 3 and 1/2 megajoules. Well, a gallon of gasoline for
which you and I go out and pay $2 delivered to our neighborhood
or anywhere we want it, very conveniently dispensed
at ambient pressure and temperature, carries about
125 megajoules, about 40 times that day’s work, even with a
10% efficiency save conversion to mechanical work. Pretty good deal. Natural gas, by the way, just
to give you other reference points– underlining what is obviously
why we had this transformation during the Industrial
Revolution– natural gas delivered to
my house here in Brookline, pretty far away from the source,
is about $12 a gigajoule. And coal that, of
course, we no longer want delivered to our neighborhoods,
gets to the power plant somewhere out there at
about $2 a gigajoule. Now the electricity that comes
from that plant to my house I pay about $35 per gigajoule. But a couple of points here. One, again, fossil fuels are
extraordinarily good energy sources and
inexpensive when put up against any kind of rational
measure of what they do for us. And secondly, one point
that I’ll come back to in transportation. Noting this
electricity delivered to your house translated
into work, being rather more expensive, a reminder. Electricity is an energy
carrier from the primary fuel. There’s a conversion involved. It’s more expensive. 2/3 of the energy typically
will be lost to heat. But of course we
use it because we like its convenience,
its cleanliness at the point of
use, and we simply can afford to pay for it. The analog to electricity
in the transportation sector is hydrogen, an energy
carrier, not a primary fuel. But let me note right now– we’ll come back to it later– that even liquid hydrogen,
not a very convenient fuel for our cars, still has
only about a quarter the volume energy
density of gasoline. And so hydrogen really is not
the best transportation fuel unless you want to travel
vertically, like Michael for the space station. Then it’s very good, has a
very good mass energy density. But hydrogen is unlikely to
have the impact that electricity has due to convenience. It may have it, of
course, due to cleanliness and environmental concerns. And we’ll come back
to that later on. So anyway, bottom
line, we shouldn’t be surprised fossil fuels
today account for about 85% of world energy use. Transportation depends
almost entirely on oil. Coal, major uses in electricity,
more than half of ours here in the United States. Natural gas for
electricity and heating. Of these, the
demands of mobility make the transportation
displacement of fossil fuel probably the most
difficult to contemplate. So in the absence of
externalities like security of supply and
environmental stewardship, technology and
performance do not drive us to look for a
changed paradigm, if you like, in terms of transportation. In fact, fossil fuels are
so valuable because they’re so cheap. And you make it up
in volume, basically. So I will discuss these
externalities, security and environment, to see
how they may or may not influence the trajectory of
our transportation technology. So let’s turn to
security of supply. How much is there
of this stuff, can I get it, and at what price? By the way, the same
considerations would largely, are increasingly
applied to natural gas. First of all, we are
not running out of oil. There’s about a trillion
barrels of conventional reserves in the world, many
decades worth at let’s say 100 million barrels
per day, which we are likely to reach
in say, 10 or 15 years. I mean, as some like
to say, the Stone Age did not end for lack of stones. And that’s likely to be
true for oil as well, at least for quite some time. Now, there are some problems. The distribution of this
reserve unfortunately has very poor geographical
correlation with demand. This is Augustine’s
law, apparently. And specifically, about 57% of
oil reserves are in the Mideast and 2/3 are, in general,
in OPEC countries. Second, the cost is
likely to be increasing. I say cost and not
price, as one, of course, is going farther along
the oil production curve. But don’t forget, price
is, objectively speaking, still pretty low. However, for alternative supply
paths that we will now come to, cost increase can be very
important in impacting the opportunity for alternative
supply to penetrate the market. Now this distribution of oil
has raised major public concerns in this country and elsewhere
since the ’73 and ’79 oil shocks and with
the more recent OPEC cohesion in using market power. Unfortunately,
starting in the ’70s, this also led to a very
simple minded definition of our security goal,
decrease imported oil. This is not a sensible
statement if you adhere to what may be arguably
the only fragment we have of energy policy
in this country, and that is a
reliance on markets. Those two statements are
practically incompatible. More appropriate objectives
for advancing security really are limiting market power
by impacting the supply demand balance, and especially in
creating more elasticity for oil demand. So what are some sensible
technology and policy objectives to pursue
if we want to address energy security in this sense? I will offer four
pathways, all of which hinge upon technology
development and the interplay of technology and policy. Well, number one
on anybody’s list, really, is reduce oil demand. And I want to stress,
not imported oil demand, oil demand. And the number one
technology pathway for addressing the
reduction in oil demand is what we heard this
morning, particularly from John Heywood, that of
higher efficiency vehicles. And certainly– and I think
John would agree since I took it from his studies– that certainly objectives
such as 80 mile per gallon, full size hybrid
automobiles in say a 20, 25 year time period
with at least arguably reasonable price
differential is not a crazy technological dream. But one that, with
wide scale deployment, would have enormous impact. Because remember, you don’t
have to displace oil use to address the security issue. In fact, today, a few
million barrels a day of elasticity or
demand reduction would have an enormous
impact on any possible use of market power by creating
essentially substantially more reserve production capacity,
which currently is held almost exclusively in Saudi Arabia. So oil demand,
efficient vehicles is certainly number
one direction. Number two, diversify
oil resources. So I’m still not
going off of oil, but diversify oil resources. Now in fact, since the ’70s,
apparently unrecognized by policymakers, we’ve actually
had a complete change in how the oil market functions. And part of that is by
diversifying resources geographically across the world. But today, let’s focus
more on technology pathways for diversifying oil resources. Because earlier, that trillion
barrels that I mentioned was really essentially
so-called conventional reserves. But there are
unconventional reservoirs by various definitions,
specifically, for example, Canada and
Venezuela in our hemisphere. Of course, one is an
OPEC member, one is not. Each, not together,
but each have more heavy oil reserves
than Saudi Arabia has reserves, each with more
than a quarter trillion barrels each. Now there’s a big
technology play here. To produce that oil
economically, to refine it– it may have desulfurization
issues, for example– there are production issues,
fracturing, completion, et cetera. But my only point is to say
that today in Western Canada, in various places, that
oil is being produced today for $15 a barrel. So this is not some,
again, some crazy, far out in the future unattainable goal. It is quite real. And in fact, maybe your
company, Norm, but certainly major oil companies
are up there, in fact, rapidly increasing this. Now there are technologies that
need to be refined for this. However, I should
say, are not only those in the production
and refining, but also in things like
environmental mitigation. And this, in fact, may be
one of the major limitations in how rapidly those
resources can be opened up. But it’s a very
real pathway that we haven’t paid too
much attention to, certainly in the
policy community. OK. That’s two approaches. Third approach now, develop
alternatives to oil. Alternatives that, let’s
say, let’s restrict ourselves for this purpose to producing
very convenient liquid fuels that you can essentially
burn in the same combustion engines you have today. A couple of examples
of these technology pathways, converting
natural gas to liquid fuel. Again, a very rapidly growing–
small on a global scale– but a rapidly growing approach. There is a huge amount of
stranded gas in the world. Stranded gas means
natural gas reserves that are, because of the
extra complication and cost of transporting
gas across long distances compared to liquids like oil,
is stranded by being too far from demand centers. Once again, the bad news is a
very large, more than a third of the world’s gas reserves
are also in the Middle East. But in this case, not nearly
as developed as a market because they are far
from demand centers. But many, many places in the
world have huge amounts of gas, which you can get today at say
$0.50 and sometimes for free compared to say the $5 we’re
paying today in the United States. Now liquefying the gas and
transporting it directly as gas, of course,
is growing rapidly. Although certainly in
this country opposition to such plants is quite intense. But also, as I say, this gas to
liquid approach is going well. And advances in
chemistry and engineering already have such
liquid fuels produced at let’s say competitive prices
with $25, maybe $30 a barrel of oil. So not out of the ballpark,
again, of where we are today, and costs rapidly decreasing. And these fuels, by
the way, also often have great environmental
attractions. For example, diesel fuel
produced from natural gas earns a price premium
because it offers lower sulfur and
lower particulate emissions in burning. Another technology
pathway at the same type is biofuels as the source. Now, of course, ethanol
is the most prevalent. I want to stress
that I do not mean ethanol derived from burning
corn as we subsidize heavily today. Burning food is
probably a poor way to move your 3,000 pounds
of steel to the corner store to get some food. But for example, research on
things like enzyme development to break down cellulose,
essentially a waste product, are very, very promising, and
once again, not that far away. Rational predictions would
say that in 10 to 15 years, we can be talking $1
to $1 and a quarter for unsubsidized,
cellulose-based ethanol. But technology, especially
in this business with large
infrastructures, often has to be aligned with policy. One interesting suggestion made
by the Energy Futures Coalition along this regard, if
one wants to stimulate these pathways which
enhance energy security and also have environmental
benefits, for example, would be– as a thought calculation– let’s say take only $10 billion
of our agricultural subsidies generally focused on
growing nothing or growing things that third world farmers
might grow better, cheaper at least. Put those into energy crops. That subsidy into energy crops
at a $0.50 per gallon subsidy could displace 15% of our
gasoline use, a huge impact. Now again, I’m not saying
that’s this policy to follow. But I’m just saying we have a
lot of technologies and policy tools that are out
there right now that we could use if we had
a kind of coherent energy security policy. The fourth direction–
again after efficiency, new oil sources,
alternatives to oil– the fourth direction is
a more profound change of the transportation paradigm. We’ll hear several here. We’ll hear Dean’s version
of that for at least some particular uses. We would have heard Dean
Mitchell’s statement about city planning as a way to alter it. But again, let me focus on the
technology pathway certainly most discussed in this context. And that’s hydrogen
and fuel cell vehicles, which would obviously
be a major shift. Of those four pathways,
this is by far the most problematic
and longest term. First, as we’ve
already discussed, it simply is not the
ideal transportation fuel. And John Heywood,
again, referred to that as well this morning. We know the cost
problems with fuel cells, with producing
hydrogen, with storage, and with a whole new
infrastructure potentially being required. But let’s just think
more simply of the scale of what it would mean to
introduce hydrogen fuel cells in cars at a scale
that really matters. Because again, it
isn’t a primary fuel. We’ve got to get
it from someplace. Well, the easiest place to get
it, the easiest and cheapest, is from natural gas. In fact, there’s a lot
of hydrogen produced. And some of you may not
know that, in fact, there are even large hydrogen
pipelines down in the Houston area, for example,
to serve refineries who use it to lighten
increasingly heavy, or increasingly sour crude oil. Natural gas, obviously,
mainly methane, CH4. A lot of hydrogen in
there so it’s good source. However, just to
displace the increment in global oil use
projected to 2025, globally, just the
increment, would require 75 trillion cubic
feet per year of natural gas on an energy equivalency basis. The scale of that is,
that is approximately all the natural gas, slightly
less than all the natural gas used today in the world. You can imagine a few
problems ramping up to that scale of use. So maybe the answer is to go
to a less valuable hydrogen source like water,
electrolysis, for example. Well, standard so-called
cold electrolysis needs about 50 kilowatt
hours of electricity to produce a
kilogram of hydrogen, which in turn has the
energy equivalent of roughly a gallon of gasoline. That translates,
again, once again, to displace the
increment in oil use to 2025, that requires about
30 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity per year,
slightly more than twice as much as the world uses today. Now, technology can help reduce
these staggering numbers. For example, efficiency of end
use may get us a factor of 2. Fuel cells are highly efficient. Although one should
remember that advanced hybrids,
the competition, is also very efficient. Or one of the competitions. And secondly, and in
my view a central, is to find much more efficient
processes for production. In fact, one of the
questioners this morning alluded to nuclear power
plants as a possible source of high temperature heat for
thermal production of hydrogen. Unproved, certainly today,
extremely uneconomical. But there are a number
of ideas out there being pursued to lower this
cost of getting hydrogen. But this is a long way off. And I think we cannot afford to
have a focus on this direction impede our frankly more serious
approaches to addressing the transportation questions
with regard to security and environment, to
which I will come. Make it very clear,
this is not a statement that we should not work
on this aggressively. We should. It could be a very important
approach in the long term. And the fact that it
costs a lot may deter us. Again, remember the
story on electricity. We’re very happy to pay three
times more per unit of energy for electricity in
our houses because we don’t want to burn Coleman
lamps for light, for example. But we should
understand what we’re getting into with the
energy carrier of paying a premium for convenience,
and especially in this case for hydrogen,
for clean end use. So the punch line really here is
that a coherent energy security policy built around especially
the first three objectives in the next couple of decades
really could do much to resolve security supply together with
easily imaginable technology development– we aren’t
asking for a miracle– and evolutionary energy
infrastructure development for efficiency, new reserves,
and alternatives to oil. And this does not
require behavioral change of any major consequence. Now clearly these pathways also
lead to environmental benefits. For example, efficiency in
the use of let’s say gasoline and advanced hybrid cuts
down emissions dramatically. And the fuels that go into
those vehicles themselves have to be much cleaner, much
lower sulfur levels, et cetera. In fact, if you think
back to what we often confuse as energy
policy, the externalities of security environment
in many ways led to the policies that have
had the most profound effect on the evolution of
transportation, as opposed to any specific energy policy. In particular, I refer
to the CAFE standards we heard about
this morning, which were a result of security
concerns following the ’73 oil embargo. And secondly, the Clean Air
Act and its amendments in 1990 have had profound
impacts on fuels and the design of engines. So the good news is those
security directions also give you environmental
benefits, particularly for the local and
regional levels– smog, et cetera. However, let me finish up by a
short focus on climate change. And let me first give
you my framework. And some of you may argue
with these later on. First, we are clearly and
undeniably, in my view, re-engineering the atmosphere– 1/3 increase in CO2
concentrations, for example, since pre-industrial– on a scale that poses risk
in a 50 to 100 year scale. And I emphasize the word risk. The time scale for turning
over the energy infrastructure is multi decadal, somewhat
shorter for transportation, but unfortunately
longer for power plants and certainly for buildings. Three, the scale
of the challenge in addressing greenhouse
gas emissions, which is basically contemplating
perhaps a factor of 2 to 2 and 1/2 times increased energy
use globally by mid century, while holding carbon emissions
at or below today’s level, is an immense challenge. Fourth, prudence demands
that we start now, especially with the very
many no regrets technology deployments that we put
forward, some of which we just discussed in terms of
alternative fuels, for example. And fifth, it doesn’t
matter where the carbon– I say carbon, carbon dioxide– comes from. Doesn’t matter where it
comes from geographically. Doesn’t matter whether it
comes from a mobile or a fixed source. Because there are very,
very long, hundreds of years residents times, in the
atmosphere, and essentially global mixing. So wherever the source comes
from has the same impact. And this in my view
suggests that market forces should and will be the principle
approach to meeting emissions reduction
requirements, no matter what those requirements
turn out to be. That is, market in
the sense of finding the lowest costway of reducing
carbon with trading, et cetera. This has a very important
implication for transportation. It is simply easier
to mitigate emissions, both technically
and politically, for stationary sources. Politically, I assume you
could take a poll here, but let me make a guess. Most of you have one vote
in upcoming elections. Some may have more,
but I’m from Chicago. I know, I’m from Chicago. You have approximately
one car, maybe more. Norm has five but
they aren’t all being driven so
it doesn’t count. And you probably don’t
have a coal plant. You are a constituency that
will favor controlling carbon at stationary sources
rather than mobile sources. Now hydrogen derived
from renewable sources or nuclear power or
renewable biofuels– specifically directly
going into, let’s say, a combustion engine– would of course avoid
carbon from transportation. Use a lot of oil, however,
as we already alluded to. In fact, we use oil globally
at the rate, the average rate, of more than 5 trillion watts. If we used half of
the cultivatable land in the world to
produce biofuels, we might be able to get, using
that same metric, a couple trillion watts, maybe. So biofuels could be very
important, but they’re not, quote, the answer to the problem
certainly in and of themselves. And hydrogen, we’ve
seen all the problems that it has in terms of
the costs, et cetera. And again, remember
it’s a carrier. And therefore, if we get the
hydrogen from natural gas, we still have the
carbon problem. In fact, John Heywood has shown
that a hybrid would perform as well lifecycle as a
hydrogen vehicle in terms of carbon emissions if you
don’t capture the carbon and put it away. So, what’s the alternative? I’m not suggesting this
is the way it will go. But I just want to emphasize the
interplay between technology, markets, and policy. Your gallon of gasoline, the
one that you and I buy for $2, it’s got about 2 and 1/2
kilograms of carbon in it, virtually all of it
essentially released as CO2 after combustion. If serious carbon
constraints are imposed, there is an expectation that,
one way or another, a price will be assigned to emitting
carbon through a market mechanism at somewhere between
$50 and $100 per ton of carbon. Today, we cannot capture carbon
following combustion at that price. With today’s technology,
it’s more like $200. But it’s got to come
down for this to work. Well, even $100 a ton
of carbon is therefore $0.25 per gallon of gasoline. That may be higher
than John’s $0.05 tax. But $0.25 is not enormous. And that brings us back
therefore to another policy technology pathway. If it is simpler
to avoid the carbon in other sources, especially
stationary sources, that may be part of
the trading market where, in effect, the mobile
source pays $0.25 a gallon for gasoline and
it goes to support a renewable or some other
kind of project that is avoiding carbon emissions. Again, I don’t know which
pathway will be followed. But I do want to
emphasize, again, a strong interplay of
technology, markets, and policy. So in summing up, in my axioms
with regard to climate change, I noted the time scale. We need to get going because
we have a 50 or 100 year horizon for possibly dramatic
action in the energy sector. And it takes that long to turn
over many parts of the energy infrastructure. There’s a story told of a
French General, Lyautey, who upon returning– this
was over 100 years ago– upon returning to France
after a long campaign asked his gardener to plant
a particular type of tree at his chateau. The gardener protested
that such a tree takes 100 years to mature. Allegedly, at least,
Lyautey’s response was then you better
plant it that afternoon because there was
no time to waste. And I think that’s
very much the spirit with which we have to address
this climate change problem. So with that, I
have the pleasure, I think, of turning over
the podium to Dean Kamen. Norm said a few
things about Dean. I’ll just add a couple more. Dean is a character,
as many of you know. And with his wonderful US FIRST
enterprise with these kids, a little anecdote was Dean
brought the two finalist teams– I don’t know, I forget
when, ’96 maybe, ’95, ’96– to the White House for
Al Gore to play with. And Al showed a little
bit too much skill at manipulating these
things for someone who certainly was
focused on broad issues of national policy. But Gore did manage, at the
instigation of various people– and I think Dean
was one of them– to finally manage to manipulate,
to drop one of the big beach balls on my head as a
demonstration of how these wonderful tools
the kids made worked. Dean also can tell you great
stories about his windmills. He’s very environmentally
committed, quite clearly. But let me not say anymore
and just have Dean come up and talk about a different
way of changing the paradigm. KAMEN: All I
learned today so far is the best fuel is the
fuel you don’t need. I heard at lunch from Chuck Vest
how seriously you all consider your ranking in
the world compared to other academic institutions. So I thought at least
I’ll get some favor here by giving you some good
news and some great news. The good news is I’m not alumni. And the great news is I
didn’t graduate from Harvard, Princeton, or Yale either. I was anticipating it
would be a panel format so you’re particularly lucky. I don’t have a lot of
slides or a presentation. But I did, after listening to
this morning, by some luck, have a 500 meg little
device in my pocket which had some fun pictures on it
that I thought I’d start with and then maybe try to tell
you a little bit about this. Are we going to be
able to do that, boss? In a moment. I would have to start
out by telling you that everything I
listened to today made me realize that half
of the great data I quote comes from people like Joe
Coughlin and Professor Heywood. So I can’t possibly,
with any credibility, talk in detail about
the various aspects either of the technology
or the infrastructure of transportation. So I’ll just give you a
very contracted history with respect to how I think
this thing might, let’s say, fit into what might
be the future. Now that he’s got this
picture up, again, I’ll start. You probably think I’d
show this picture– says stop here, I’m in trouble– because we’re in the Oval
Office with the President. That’s not why. It’s really here for
a couple of reasons. One, everywhere I go, I have
to tell people about FIRST and get more support for it. And so, yes, we were getting the
National Medal of Technology. Yes, it’s the Oval Office. And yes, being in an iBOT was
nearly eye level with this guy. But we’re discussing FIRST
and he’s making his commitment to bring the winners
of our competition to be recognized in the White
House, which he in fact did do. Hello? Very quickly, this
picture is here, I guess, in part
because we were proud that our technology in iBOT
help the disabled get around. It was recognized and we won
the National Medal of Technology with it. But my point in
showing this picture, really, is much more
important than that. It’s not the iBOT
in the Oval Office. It’s the fact that the
President and I are discussing, and he is committing to bring
the winners of our first competition– our annual event,
that’s what this is all about– to be recognized in the White
House, which he in fact did do. So that made it a
successful trip. The other reason I like
to show this picture is because I’m trying to debunk
the common myth that when the occasion demands it, I can
in fact be a snappy dresser. And so here I am. The other reason I
wanted to show this slide is because we’re here
to talk about issues of technology and
transportation in particular. But I just think it’s in
general new technologies. Typically, these days
more than ever, technology is moving much faster than the
ability of people and cultures to absorb it. And as a proof of
that, I figured I’d first show the expected
and intended consequence of our ability to
understand human balance. And bring this
now, after a couple of decades of effort, this
medically approved Class 3 device to people
that can’t walk. And then to point
out that sometimes, and I think
inevitably, technology brings you unexpected results. So here’s the expected
and intended consequence, a President of the United States
recognizing the importance of balancing
technology– by the way, there is clearly balance
in the Oval Office. And here is the unintended
but inevitable consequence of balancing, or almost
balancing, technology. This is the current President
of the United States. This is a Segway. They work a lot better
when you turn them on. You’ve got to plan
and you’ve got to know what you’re
getting into in this world. Anyway, louder. Sorry. The next one is to
show that I also can appreciate the broad
range of technology you need for transportation. And if you happen to
get your 10,000 pound Humvee stuck in the snow and
you happen to have an iBOT– I was a little concerned
here because I checked and this cable’s only good
to 30,000 pounds of pull– but that was a happy experiment. This is a slide that
was done by Leon Creer. Most of you may know he’s a
pretty renowned architect. And without any prompting
by us or anybody at Segway, I was asked to go down
to Washington where thousands of architects,
city urban planning types were getting together. And he put this slide– giving
us great recognition for it– but he put this slide up. This is a satellite
view of Washington DC. This was the amount
of Washington you could cover in
a five minute walk. And this is the amount,
10 times by area the amount you could cover,
in a five minute Segway trip. And he went on to talk
about the 21st century needs to rethink how we architect
cities, given the right tools. So it’s in that
spirit of that I’d like to make a couple
of quick observations, as somebody who’s always
trying to convince the world that maybe
we should relook at the fundamental issues. I should use one to
Norm Augustine’s laws in which I think he said the
early bird catches the worm. The early worm gets eaten. I’ve spent most of
my life as the worm. But it’s OK. So in a very contracted
piece of history, let me tell you the history
of the world of transportation as I see it as a person
who spent 30 years building medical equipment, and only
as a result of that iBOT sort of segued into this. So it got really cold. The dinosaurs died. And then people came. And people stand up
and walk on two feet. That takes care of about the
first 100 million years or so. Then, we invented the
most important technology of all time for
humanity, the plow. And we went from
hunter gatherers to organized societies. And even in the very
first organized societies, you’d be happy to know,
there was congestion. In ancient Greece, when
the known population was 1.5 million people,
the law in ancient Greece said you could not bring
your horse, your ox and cart inside the city walls from
one hour before sunrise until one hour after sunset. They were already
worried about congestion where people want to live
in city environments, and already had figured out it’s
not a place for big equipment to be miscellaneously mingling
with a pedestrian environment. That was an interesting lesson. Few thousand years went by
and every few hundred years some major piece of
transportation technology changed the world. Figured out how to
build boats, found the compass, that’s why
we’re all in North America. That changed the world. We built locomotives.
, Interesting, we’re talking about energy. And when we built the first
engines to move things, everybody thinks we
start small and get big. That’s not true. We built locomotives
to run trains. And at least 50 years before
we were moving cars around, we had these multi
hundred ton machines. They turned the
continent into a country because we could move things
around very efficiently. And that changed the
way we perceive life. All the while, for a
few thousand years, cities were growing up. Now we get to the year 1903. Henry Ford decides
wouldn’t it be great if we had the next big
change in transportation. And he was right. But he was dealing
with the situation that you could move great big
heavy stuff easily in trains. You could get stuff
across an ocean in boats. Individuals were very
happy, believe it or not, walking around cities. The problem was that
that intermediate space, the small towns to
the small towns, the small towns to
the railroad stations. With their crops or with
their manufactured goods, or getting around
farms, they wanted to change the horse and
buggy to the horseless buggy. The horse and carriage was
too slow, didn’t carry enough, and it was twice as long
as just the carriage alone. So if you could
take a technology to make the thing half as big
and twice as fast, you win. A snapshot in time of the year
1903, about 154 million people on the planet lived in cities. It was 9% of the
human population. 91% of the world lived in a
rural, agrarian environment. The 9% that lived
in all the cities were happy walking around. They didn’t have a problem. The car was intended
for that other 91% to solve a big
problem and improve the way we all live and work. And it worked. It worked so well
that by the 1950s, we’re building the highway
systems across this country and across the world. And it’s the eighth
wonder of the world. They’re the largest public
works projects ever done. And we can take them
for granted if you want, but they’re extraordinary. And you heard all sorts
of prognostication on the future of the car. And you could be disappointed
that we’re only getting them better at 1% per year. But that’s not
because they’re bad. That’s because
they’re so damn good. It’s about the cheapest
piece of technology you buy, pound for pound. And you put it out
on the highway, and at 65 miles an hour, you
can go in almost complete safety between cities, take your
whole family with you, stay warm all winter,
stay cool all summer. Everybody loves them. It’s not surprising. It’s the largest
industry on the planet. You just heard the list of all
the companies that support it. It’s a problem that, in
fact, existed and was solved. And for 100 years it was great. Now some new data. 100 years goes by and
for the first time in human history,
including the Greeks, 50% of the human population–
for the first time in history, this decade– more people
live in cities or megacities than any other environment,
3.2 billion people. And it’s the only part of the
global human population that’s increasing is cities
and megacities. In Asia alone, if there
were no further births, the expectation is
in the next 20 years, 800 million people will move
into cities or megacities. 800 million, 20
years, just Asia. You can divide that out. If the average city had 10
million people, Manhattan. 10 million people to get to 800
million, you need 80 cities. 80 cities in 20 years,
that’s one every six weeks. So let’s build a city of the
size and density of Manhattan every six weeks for the
next 20 years that will only deal with the population
migration of just the people already alive just in Asia. Then you heard that
everybody wants to used cars. You heard all sorts of data. And I can’t help it but
getting 1% more fuel economy each year, as tough
as that would be and as remarkable as
it will be to get to– 80 gallons, 80
miles per gallon– it still seems to me when you’re
talking about population swings and 10 billion people on
the planet in 30 years and all of them expecting to
join the, quote, middle class, all of them trying to get at
least out of abject poverty, the idea that we’re going to do
it with these 1% improvements year by year is like
swatting at the flies while we’re getting
trampled by the elephants. So, what’s the good news? The good news to me
was after we spent a couple of decades
trying to figure out how to understand human
balance for the sole purpose– I wish I could say that
this was some great vision– for the sole purpose of helping
the disabled community who couldn’t walk at all– we made an iBOT. We made that thing
that helps people get up and be at eye level
and walk up and down stairs and have dignity. But the technical challenge of
understanding human balance, understanding that when you
kind of want to walk forward you just think about taking
a step and you go, or you want to back up you
kind of think about backing up, understanding human balance
and implementing it in a simple device, as difficult as it might
seem– maybe I’m just naive– but I just had
enormous confidence that I have the kind of
people that can do it. By the way, many of
them are your alums. A few of them are here
now, John Morales is here. John Kerwin is here. Derek Cane is here. I just have infinite confidence
that I’d like it to be weeks. They tell me it will be months. It takes years. But we’ll do it. We’ll solve it. We’ll make the technology work. And I’ve never doubted that. We made the iBOT and
immediately my concern was, would we ever get this thing
through the Food and Drug Administration and allow
people that need it to use it? Will we ever get
rational people to accept that this technology poses,
quote, reasonable risk for grandma on a staircase? And the answer was yes. Took $100 million dollars. Took a lot of years. But we got it through the FDA. Instantly, we had this thing. And I said, you
know, every project we’ve ever done we license
off to some big company who can efficiently bring
it to the world. We went to Johnson & Johnson,
the world’s largest medical products company, with the iBOT. Who could I take this to? Instantly, and looking at
it, I said well, there’s a lot of companies
that might think it’s the equivalent of the
urban version of a snowmobile or a jet ski or an ATV or
some other recreational toy. It is fun. It can zip around. But I couldn’t do
it because I just had been thinking about
some of the things I just told you, and said
technology has been brought to bear in every form
of human transportation, even in my own lifetime. I’ve watched us go
from earthbound to– I watched, when I
was in high school, a human being step on the moon. And all I could think of was
if half the human population is now living in cities, a
city needs a car like a fish needs a bicycle. And all I can think of is,
we’ve got to give people a new alternative. Because left to
their own devices, if they don’t have
one, we’ll keep doing what we’ve been doing. And all the forces, market
forces that you’ve seen will keep making it seem
reasonable to people that cars belong in
the middle of cities. So here’s some more data. You talk about 1%
more efficiency. 43% of the gasoline used for
transportation in the United States last year was used
in cars sitting in traffic or going less than
eight miles an hour. Well, you can play on the
edges of all these problems but recognize cars are great
when used the way they’re supposed to be used. And I mean, I have
an airplane and I don’t feel guilty about it. I get into that thing,
I climb to 41,000 feet. I scream along at Mach
0.8, I’m a happy camper. And I can cross this
continent in a few hours. And Boeing can put
everybody in this room in a machine like that, cross
the continent in a few hours. That’s a remarkable achievement. We shouldn’t feel
badly about it. But when we land,
we were smart enough to build an infrastructure
that said we leave our airplanes at the airport. Nobody I know would complain
to Lockheed or to Boeing, it’s a really nice machine but
that last few miles getting it home, it’s clipping
down the, you know, the trees on my neighbor’s lawn. It’s mileage on the
taxiway is awful. Well, we all laugh at that. But the fact is, you
want to go 600 miles, I’d suggest you
get in an airplane. It goes 600 miles an hour. An hour later you can
be just about anywhere on the continent. Then you get into a car. It goes 60 miles an hour. You spend a half an hour
in it going any way you want to go from any airport. And then you get to that
last couple of miles where half the human
population lives. And that’s where
all the problem is. Well, you’re not going
to fix it in the way you designed the airplane or in
the way you designed the car. You’re going to leave your
airplane at the airport. You’re going to take your
car for what it was ideally designed to do, relatively high
speed ground transportation– convenient, efficient,
relatively efficient, safe. And then when you
get to where people live in high dense environments,
give them another alternative. Now you could say,
well, it won’t work. So my last set of
data– and again, I’ve heard different people
quoting different pieces of it– but there’s been
multiple studies on this because efficiency
and cost and time is the most important
thing humans have. And there have been loads of
studies done in the last 10 years that will tell
you 500 years ago it took six years
to cross the ocean. 100 years ago it
took six months. 50 years ago it took six weeks. Five years ago it
started taking six hours. No matter what, the
advancements in technology and transportation
have been phenomenal. Except the Greeks walked
from the theater of Dionysus to the Parthenon by
slapping on their sandals and cruising along
at two miles an hour. You want to go from the
center of the known universe, the Carnegie Deli
on 57th Street, down to the Empire
State Building, you slap on your
sneakers and your cruise at two miles an hour. There’s been not only
no change, but cities have gotten bigger because
the population is now 6 billion people. Even the cities are just huge. They’re megacities. Secondly, because cars have
invaded them and spread them out, the actual density that
you need to make a city survive has been jeopardized. Except for the
really large cities, most cities haven’t
survived the car. If you need to get into a car
to go to some place in the city, you’re going to
get on the highway and go out to the suburb. That’s why most mid-sized and
small cities have disappeared, or their downtowns are
thrift shops and junk that can’t compare and compete
with the mall or the sprawl or the Walmart. And then so went things
like the education and you know the
rest of the story. You might ask yourself
the real question then, why does everybody
spend all morning driving into the city, sitting
in traffic for two hours, and driving out? Because cities are the most
anthropogenic invention of humanity. We want to live
and work together. We want to be clustered. And almost everybody in the
20th century, including what were the great visionaries
like Robert Moses– that invented this concept
of let’s spend all of our day and all of our energy sloshing,
going in opposite directions– did it because I think they
really forgot that fact. But a city, to us that
aren’t urban designers, anthropologists,
and sociologists, is a place where you
can get up and where you can work and eat and play
and see the arts without having to do other things. That’s why people built
cities, including the Greeks. But the last piece of data,
which is over the last 10 years has been proven out in the
richest cities in the world and the poorest cities– whether you go to Bangkok,
Mexico City, Paris, London– the average speed in the
average city in the world is eight miles an hour
from a point of departure to a point of destination. Eight miles an hour. Everybody sits there and
says it’s outrageous. Everybody sits in
the back of that cab and says it’s outrageous. And they watch the
meter go to 20 bucks but they don’t get out. Everybody sits in their car
and says it’s outrageous but they don’t get out. Why? Because as bad as
eight miles an hour is, it’s only relative to
the 60 miles an hour that you knew that car
was designed to go, and it was going until you
got to the edge of the city. The other reason
you don’t get out is you know damn well you
walk at two miles an hour. So 40 minutes in that car– or sorry– 10 minutes in that
cab at eight miles an hour is 40 minutes of walking. Nobody’s going to
give up that half hour at each end of the trip. Nobody. No matter what it
costs, no matter how inconvenient it
is, eight miles an hour is still the best
option you have. You go to any big city
that happens to have buses and that happens to have subways
and that happens to have cabs, the cruel arbiter of
competition has said no matter which one you choose, it ends
up about eight miles an hour. Because if one was substantially
better, you’d use it. And that’s the good news. If one was substantially
better, you’d use it. Well, what if you could be
in that city at 59th Street and you want to go
down to 34th Street and you could do it at
eight miles an hour? I am now going
eight miles an hour. I’m not getting tired. I take up as much room
as any other pedestrian. I can bump into people and I’m
compliant like other people. If I ran into somebody
here, I’d probably hit my nose against you, not
the fork of a bicycle, which actually takes as much room
to turn around as a car. I can stop and I can back up. I can stand in crowds. I’m just a hyperpedestrian. What if you could take 3.2
billion people and say, you know, technology
has given us everything from
the first sailing ships to little machines
that just landed on Mars a few months ago. But technology’s never
helped the pedestrian. And it really didn’t matter
because, even by 1903, they were only 9% of
the world and they were happy the cities
were small and compressed. What if you could go and give
to a pedestrian environment an alternative that would
eliminate the need for cars in these places, and
even if you made your car very clean and very efficient? You still don’t need a
3,000 pound pile of steel to move your 150 pound
butt around town. And it’s still
not going to solve the problems of congestion and
parking and everything else. But if you could give people
that live in these environments an alternative
that’s non-polluting, that’s fun to use, that fits in
a pedestrian environment that doesn’t even need any
change in infrastructure– it needs a change
that’s way tougher to do, a change in thinking. But supposing people
could accept the idea that pedestrians ought to
have a choice, everybody that wants to go
less than a block or so uses their sneakers. Everybody that’s going
more than a few miles is going to use public
transit or a car. But something like 65% of all
trips in automobiles in cities are less than two miles. If you wiped all of those
out, maybe downtowns would become fun,
exciting, efficient, clean, urban environments again. So we thought this would be fun. As I said, I’m clearly– unfortunately, Mr. Augustine,
you’re always right. I am clearly finding
that we’re the worm. I think it is highly
likely that, like jet skis and snowmobiles and dirt
bikes, of which there are millions sold
per year, these will be attractive to people. The question is how
long will it take before people can
accept that cities ought to open their minds and
deal with the real problems? I was told the day we started
putting these things together there was no chance we would
be able to go into a major city or state in this country
and get them to change the law that something that has
motors and wheels, i.e. a motor vehicle, would be
allowed on the sidewalk. I pointed out it would
be nuts to assume this thing belongs in the
street in front of a bus. Again, I’m not a
sophisticated urban planner or anything like that. But it just seemed
to me I wouldn’t want my mother on this thing
in front of a 40 ton bus. I went to Washington and went to
visit the appropriate agencies. And there are plenty of them,
including the United States Department of Transportation. And in one meeting in one hour,
talking to very senior people there, they all
agreed this thing doesn’t belong on our roads. You sort of look like
and act like and move like any other pedestrian. I was in his office moving
around, shaking hands. He said, OK. As far as we’re concerned,
you’re not a vehicle. I was enthusiastic. I came home only to have the
great experts and lobbyists say, Dean, you just
entered hyperspace. You’re now not a legal vehicle. That doesn’t mean you are
a set of hypersneakers. You just don’t have any place. You can’t be on the
sidewalk because you’re not a pedestrian. And now you’ve been told
you’re not a vehicle. OK. We went state by state. We were then told,
by the way, the feds don’t have the authority
to say we’re on sidewalks. I went first to the state I
live in to see the governor. And I said we’re a rare,
unique little state that doesn’t really have congestion
and pollution problems. But we do have a neat idea. And the world’s problem today
in terms of transportation is in the cities. And we’re sort of where
Henry Ford was in 1903. We’re solving a
different problem for a different group
of people that’s 20 times larger by population. Maybe you can help. And they passed a law that
said if it does what this does, it has the footprint of
two points like a person, if it can stop and back up and
maneuver like a pedestrian, it’s a pedestrian. That’s big thinking. You’ve got to understand. Stay with me here. Over the next six
or seven months, I and a couple of people from
our little company of zealots went and visited,
personally visited, just about every
state in the country– governors, departments of
transportation, legislatures. And I think within six
months, it was like 38. It’s now 45 states have passed
legislation that at least gives this thing the option to exist,
to determine whether it can be compatible with pedestrians. I thought that was
quite an achievement for a tiny little startup. That wasn’t good
enough either because– and probably our most famous PR
isn’t the president falling off one of these. It’s the city of San
Francisco, which banned them before even seeing one. I went out there
to go talk to them. I was literally
spit on by a group of protesters that were stamping
with banners that read, stop the Segway slaughter. I tried to have a conversation
with these people. I asked them if they
knew that last year in this country 44,000
people were killed in cars. 1 and 1/2 million people
were hospitalized by cars. Nobody knows how many
people have other illnesses as a result of the issues of
the high density of pollution made in cities. And that’s just in the US. They didn’t want
to hear about that. Then one of them
said to me, people are going to get really
fat because of this. The woman that said that,
political correctness I will tell you, was not petite. And I said that would
be a fair criticism if I was explaining to you that
I’m selling exercise equipment. I’m selling transportation
that’s clean and neat and easy. And every piece of technology
that’s ever been marketed has a single goal, to reduce
human effort to do something. A calculator is mental effort. But cars and buses
and trains are all– I asked her if she
beat her clothes against a rock in
the morning or did she use a washing
machine, because arms looked a little flabby. I got inside and I was told
by a credible, or at least an elected official, that we
would be permanently banned before we were ever
allowed on the sidewalk because their city
had no problem. They don’t have a problem. So I don’t know what
you’re all here about because there is no problem. He then said, could I prove
it was, quote, perfectly safe. Perfectly safe. I said, well, I can’t prove it’s
perfectly safe because if I was just standing on it on the
corner of one of your sidewalks minding my own business, I could
get run over by an SUV, which weighs 5,000 pounds. It could kill me. I don’t know how to answer
most of the questions we’ve had to deal with. But we have now spent more
time and more money trying to just give this
thing the opportunity to exist in an environment. We’ve now got a few hundred
thousand hours of use. And I think our safety
record’s pretty astounding. Most of the other metrics that
would be used comparing it to other forms of
transportation, including walking, give us
a pretty favorable outcome. I don’t know what, if
anything, any of you can or should do about
what the next generation of transportation is
going to look like. But if we remember
that the world now has most of its people
living in cities, and in the next 20
years, essentially, all of its people to get out
of poverty, to get educated, to enjoy some standard
of living will be essentially living in cities,
it’ll be the model like the US. 2% of the people farm. We have to come up with a better
way to make cities viable. And just dealing with efficiency
numbers on internal combustion engines, hybrid machines
or electric cars isn’t going to deal with the
biggest piece of the biggest problem. I don’t know that
this is the solution. But at least we tried. It’s amazing to me
that, as I said before, technology seems to be making
more and more possible. But people are not only
not opening their minds to faster and faster change,
people are growing inward. I think technology,
I’ve come to learn, ought to be defined
as anything that you weren’t familiar with as a kid. I mean, you know,
to my grandparents, airplanes are technology and
telephones are technology. To my parents, television. Kids today do not think
computers or the internet are technology. They’re a commodity. They’re part of
the infrastructure. But the thing that has to
change to solve the problems– there’s enough technology
sitting on the shelf to do it– the goal, I think, is to get
enough smart technical people to start being in positions
that really help decisions get made in a rational way. This world is addicted to oil. I mean, if they were growing
brussels sprouts in Iran, I’m not sure we’d be in
exactly the position we’re in right now. And I’m not saying
that’s good or bad. Technology is out there. Technology people
generally aren’t exercising an
appropriate percentage of the decision making in
a very complicated world. And I think the world is
right now– just look at it, read the news– the world’s sort of in a
race between technology and catastrophe. And unless technology
savvy people start making the decision,
catastrophe is going to win. And we ought to be a
little more responsible. I have, along those
lines one last segue. It’s only a three
minute long piece. Along the lines of getting
more people to understand and appreciate technology,
particularly women and minorities, which
are virtually left out of that whole game
in the United States, and because for a
whole lot of reasons which they’ll never give me
enough time to talk about, we started an organization
with one of your, I think, a man that you
should be very proud, Professor Woody Flowers. He’s a fantastic guy. And being the equal
opportunity offender that I am, I went to see him probably
10 or 12 years ago and said, I know 270 is a great course. And I know you’re
very proud that we fill the place up every
year to go watch this thing. But convincing students at MIT
that science and technology is really fun, exciting,
and important to me is pretty low threshold. Let’s convince the other
99.9% of the country and the world of
that same statement. But let’s use the tools
of your competitions. And let’s make sure we get a
lot of women and minorities turned on. Now that was long before the
current popular political issues about
outsourcing and jobs. But if you need, again, to
have your own enlightened self-interest as to why you
should be involved with FIRST, last year in the United States
we graduated 62,000 engineers. I won’t tell you how many
people graduated with degrees in sports. Literally, they have
degrees in that now, sports. Or how many lawyers
we graduated, but we graduated 62,000 engineers. India and China last year
graduated 3.4 million people with technical degrees. Now we’re good. And I think
competition is great. And frankly, I think it’s
great that they’re doing that. If the whole world can
become net problem solvers and producers,
that’s better than having a few haves and
a lot of have nots. I’d rather have all these
people curing the diseases I’m going to end up with. But Americans also like to
have a high standard of living. We also like being number one. Well, that was easy
when, besides having all our other advantages and a
culture that loved innovators and entrepreneurs and
risk takers and inventors, it was also easy when
we were producing most of the scientists
and engineers. And the ones from
foreign countries that came and got those
degrees stayed here. 62,000, 3.4 million. 62,000. This is not a good time to
think that women and minorities shouldn’t even be
part of our pool, they shouldn’t even
be on the bench ready to be part of
our competitive team, and think that somehow
as a birthright America is going to stay on top. So 10 years ago we
started an organization to convince kids that science
and engineering is for anybody willing to work at it. And all the stereotypes
about engineering and science need to be broken
down and discarded. And I went around to a
bunch of inner city schools and said to a
whole bunch of kids that first year– there were
23 teams that participated– you should get on a FIRST team. It’s every bit as much fun
as basketball or football. And oh by the way, I know you
all work out four hours a day. You’re all going to be
the next Michael Jordan. All you do is give them data. Even 14-year-olds get the data. The probability that
anybody in this school will ever make a nickel
playing professional sports is way, way less
than the probability that you’ll win a state lottery. There’s five professional guys
on each team on that basketball court. They give out
thousands of lotteries. And by the way,
there’s a few million exciting technical careers
out there waiting for people that know how to think. 23 major companies,
including Lockheed, agreed to adopt a local school. We played a six
week program, just like every other
high school season. It was intense. It was short. They played with
the real mentors. Michael Jordan of Lockheed
showed up at these schools. And these kids develop
relationships with adults. And it worked. It changed their perspectives. It changed the outcomes. We now have an 11 year,
very well-documented history of what happens to drop out
rates, graduation rates, career choices, particularly
among women and minorities. We grew from 23
schools doing it once at the end of six weeks in a
high school gym in Manchester. The next year we were
about 50, then about 100. By the fifth year, we
were so big we couldn’t do our event in New Hampshire. We did it on stage at Disney. For the next five years, we
started doing regional events in cities around the country. First in two cities in the sixth
year, then four, then eight. Last year we were so big, we
couldn’t do our final event at Disney. We did it in the
Astrodome in Houston. And we had 23 cities
holding regionals, little cities, New York,
Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Jose, Cleveland,
Seattle, Houston, Orlando. And this year, we
didn’t have 23 cities. You know, the economy’s down. Travel is tough. And we didn’t have 800 teams. We had 26 cities. We’ve never lost a regional. And we had nearly 1,000
corporate sponsors that adopted 1,000 high schools. We gave out $5 million
in scholarships at the nationals,
which were held this year at the home
of the 1996 Olympics, the Georgia Dome. And oh by the way,
just as you would expect, the trappings
of a culture of sports, in this country we
get what we celebrate. And until we start
celebrating the right things, we’re in trouble. But after 10 years of– by the seventh year of running
this, even in these inner city schools, the demand was so
high among the younger brothers and sisters of
these kids that we had to start a Little
League version of the sport using LEGO. And even though we’ve only been
running that for four years, this year besides having
1,000 high schools, there are feeder schools
around the country. We had 4,115 middle
schools with teams. I am sad to tell you that
in this intellectual capital of the country, at
least we think we are, Boston is conspicuously
absent in two things. There’s no regional event in
Boston for a technology based program that’s essentially Woody
Flower’s program on steroids. And technically, Segway’s
is not legal in this city. Because obviously, this city has
no parking or traffic problems. But I would just– Anyway, there is a two
minute and 38 second video. It’s now three or
four years old. I use this not because it’s the
only one, because it’s so short and it’s an ABC World News
Tonight piece, which I really like for two reasons. It sort of gets it. But it’s just so
funny how it ends. Every year I invite
all the media I can to come to these
things because we want to get the word out. Jack Smith goes down because
Charlie Gibson from ABC sends him down and says,
he shows up at Epcot. This is three years ago. And he says, he sees this,
it’s like Olympic village. We probably have 400 or
500 teams at that point. And this guy says to me,
why didn’t you tell us it was like this? I’ve been telling you
that year after year. But you guys, people
change slowly. Trust me. I know. He goes out. He comes back a
few minutes later and you’ll see there’s two
people he interviewed that he gets on this little news piece. One of them is a Hispanic
kid from San Jose. And he said, Dean, I just
met this unbelievable kid. He was in a street
gang last year. He’s on parole. And now he’s working with NASA. He’s down in the pits. It’s unbelievable. I said, Jack, what’s
so unbelievable? He was a leader
of a street gang. Now, leadership is leadership. He just changed gangs. So he disappears. He goes away and he comes
back a little while later. He tells me, Dean, I just met
this young African-American woman. Never met her father. Her mother is
living, is homeless. Her two older siblings
have dropped out of school. Nobody in the family’s
ever gone to college. She’s on a team down in
Los Angeles with JPL. Jack, now I know why they
give you guys the big bucks. You guys in the
media are amazing. You were able to
come here to Florida and pick out the two
kids that are exactly like the other 30,000. It’s amazing how
he could do that. Anyway, he does this show and
it turned out pretty good. So I asked them
to send me a copy. And I figured I’d use it to hook
people on that I’m not kidding. It’s an exciting program. They sent it to me. And when it ends
with the typical, and that’s our news tonight,
they didn’t cut it right off. They let it dribble two
seconds or three seconds into the next story. The first time I
showed it, people started laughing
when it was over. And then I listened
to what he’s saying. And I just want to
assure you that I did not dub two disparate
news stories together. Reality is way more ridiculous
than my imagination could ever do. And if you don’t believe
that our culture is just, it’s not what we don’t have
enough of in this country– great universities,
great– it’s what we have too much of,
nonsense and noise that’s preventing kids from figuring
out what’s important in life. We ran in 26 cities. We ran a few thousand rounds
of unbelievably gracious competitions. We had not a single wardrobe
malfunction the entire year. But look at this video. Then I’ll tell you
where these two kids are because it’s old now. And look at the next piece
that Charlie Gibson goes into. And I swear to you I did
not dub them together. This is the reality of
the American culture. Can we see this thing? [VIDEO PLAYBACK] – Finally tonight, not
your ordinary science fair. Each year, the US is
short a million scientists and engineers. And so there’s every attempt
to make this work enticing. An example, what happened
this weekend in Orlando. 15,000 teenagers from 270 high
schools all across the country vying to prove that they
can build a better robot. Here’s ABC’s Jack Smith. – It looks like a rock concert
or maybe a sports championship. But this is actually a high
school science competition. – It’s fun. – This is how we get dates. – This is how you get dates? – Yes. – The objective is
for competing robots to place as many balls as
possible in a raised trough, then force their way onto a
central ramp, and if possible, hook the bar and hang from it. – There’s probably
more cheerleaders here and pep squads then
at the NCAA finals. – We’re trying to get to the
kids that never really thought about science and engineering as
possible for them, particularly women and minorities. – And more than a
third of the students here are women and minorities. – A lot of girls
on our team really weren’t really looking
into engineering or any mathematical fields. Now over half the team wants to
go into some current science. – Students have to
raise their own money. Robots cost around $5,000. And they have just six
weeks to build them. They get to work with
real engineers as opposed to the theory of it. They get to meet mentors. They get shown things. They get a whole
learning experience that’s in a fun environment. – This is what most American
children need, adult presence. And they don’t get it. So here they’re getting it. Definitely, attention
from adults. – At the finals, one of the
teams is captained by a senior from California, Kenny Vargas. That’s him on the right. And his team wins. It’s a special
moment because Kenny, who’s headed for college, just
last year was in a street gang. – You know, I never accomplished
anything in my life. Nobody ever told me, you
know, I was good at anything. And you know, I saw that
I was good at something. You know, I can be
good in other areas if I just put all my
effort towards it. – Lessons not only about
technology, but also about life at this most unusual of
high school competitions. Jack Smith, ABC News,
Orlando, Florida. – And that is our report
on World News Tonight. Later on Nightline, can a woman
teach rich, young athletes how to live better? I’m Charles Gibson. We hope you have a good
evening, and good night. [END PLAYBACK] KAMEN: I’m not
making it up, really. Our friend, Kenny Vargas,
graduated that year. And with a little
help from his friends from NASA, the team that he
was on out there in San Jose, they helped get him into a local
trade school on the West Coast where he’s graduating this year
from Berkeley with a degree in mechanical engineering. Lauren Lyons stayed in
school another two years. She’s now only going
to becoming a junior. But two years ago, with a little
help from the people from JPL in Los Angeles, the team she
stayed on for three years, they got her into a little local
trade school on the East Coast called Princeton University. At the end of her
first year there, she found that, much to
her dismay, Princeton hadn’t adopted a school. Among the 1,000 teams,
we have about 900 are companies that
adopt a school. And about 100 are universities
that adopt a school. And she, Lauren decided
she needs to give back. So she organized a
club at Princeton. They adopted a
Newark high school and came in fourth in the New
Jersey Regional this year. So she’ll be due to graduate
from your institution this year. It isn’t that
complicated, everybody. You know, there’s way
more technology out there. It’s not the barrier. We have 21st century technology. We’ve got to have a
21st century mindset that we have different
problems than we used to have. And we need to adjust the
way we think about them so that everybody has opportunities
to be part of the solution. And America in
particular, it amazes me that we’re all used to
getting what we want. Everybody wants big things. I think this generation
may not get what it wants. But we may get what we deserve. So I would help. And I would stay open-minded
about other technology. Thank you. AUGUSTINE: OK. Could you hear me all right? All right. I’m disappointed, Dean. I wanted to see if you could
sit down in that thing. We’ve got exactly 13 minutes for
questions for Ernie and Dean. We’ll cue up at the
two microphones. If you keep the
questions short, I’ll ask you keep the answers short. We’ll just go back and forth. Sir. AUDIENCE: Hi. I just want to
say thanks to Dean for starting the
first competition. I’m from Hartford, Connecticut. And we’ve had a
regional competition there for a number of years. And it’s really amazing, not
just to see the kids doing the technical details
with the mentors, but to see the people
cheerleading them. It really is just like a– and I really found
it surprising to see that kids would cheer for
something as technical as this. But it’s really great. And I would say to other MIT
alumni like myself, you know, try to get involved with it. And whether it be a supporter
financially or as a mentor or through the
students, it’s really something great to support. Because we need more
technical people, as you said. You know, 160,000 or whatever
versus a couple million, that’s a big gap. AUGUSTINE: Thank you
for that comment. We’ll go over here. AUDIENCE: Yeah. Quick question on
the first program. Is there a way for students
who are not in school to part to participate in that? KAMEN: [INAUDIBLE]. I’ll give you my card. AUGUSTINE: You got to
put the mic up, I think. KAMEN: There’s a way for
everybody to participate. We need mentors at every event. There there’s no
limit to what we need. And if you are a
person, frankly, who’s got any technical
capability, a little bit of passion, we need you. AUDIENCE: I guess
my question is, when you talk about organizing
through the schools, is there a way for students who
are not in school to take part? KAMEN: We probably had
30 of the 1,000 teams at the robotics competition
were homeschooled groups that got together. And probably 15% of
the 4,100 schools, or 4,100 teams that came
to the FIRST LEGO League were homeschoolers. AUDIENCE: OK. Good. Thank you. AUGUSTINE: Thank you. Question? AUDIENCE: Hi, Dean. First of all, I have to say
you have a great product. My high school son
brought home a couple of units from our
local car dealership. And we used them
for the weekend. They were great. Unfortunately, I haven’t
yet written the check and they had to go back
to the car dealership. But my question
is, so I could see very dense urban areas
might have a concern where if 95% of the
entities on the sidewalk were going two
miles an hour and 5% are going eight miles an hour. But have you been
pushing for them to be used more in
areas with bike lanes and maybe not quite
as dense areas where the sidewalks aren’t
packed quite as tight? KAMEN: If I could
go back and change some of the things
we did, I’m not sure it would have come
out better or worse or no different. I might have thought about going
to the bike people in the bike lanes. Because much to our, at least my
shock, amazement, and surprise, there was negative
response– not by the car people who I would
have anticipated it from, none at all. They realize we don’t
compete with a car. You’re not going to buy
this instead of a car. You don’t buy sneakers
instead of a car. I didn’t realize why, but
perhaps by not consulting them. The bike people, who
I thought would see us as an ally, another
opportunity to get cars out of the middle of
their city, I thought that if we went and asked
to be on bike lanes, they’d say we’re way too slow. They worked for three
generations to get this space. We’re going to just
walk in and use it. So I thought we were
doing a courtesy of saying we’re a pedestrian. We’ll live with pedestrians. And unlike a bike, if
pedestrians are crowded, which is very rare by the
way, the show just let out, we can stop. We can back up. We go at the same speed. We mix well with a crowd. Typically, there’s no
crowds so we come along. So I will admit that
we never talked early on to the bike people. We, as a consequence perhaps,
did not get their support. Maybe it’s not too late. I don’t think we
belong on a bike lane. We are pedestrians. If enough people
do this, the cities will accommodate it by
making lanes for it. But you certainly
can’t preemptively ask for lanes for it. Just let them be. If there are not a lot of
them around, it won’t matter. The 1,500 cars he’s
proud to get rid of. Well, 1,500 of these would
get lost in this city and eliminate 1,500 cars
starts every couple hours. If a lot of people
start using them, the infrastructure will adopt,
the way we now stack cars up in 5 level buildings. AUGUSTINE: Thank you. We’ll go over here. AUDIENCE: Just a
quick comment to Dean. I skated for about a
mile alongside a person using your device. And noticed that potholes
were a big problem for him. So if the bike lanes
have got potholes, those have to be very neatly
filled in before they even consider it. And there’s still the
speed differential problem. But my question actually is
for the young looking professor of physics. There’s an article in What
Matters, the MIT alumni publication, in March, which
suggests electrified guideways is the culmination of our
surface transportation developments over
the next few decades. Why didn’t you talk about that? And what do you think of it? AUGUSTINE: Young looking
professor of physics. MONIZ: Who’s that? Anyway, well, again,
I’m addressing really, if you like, the large
scale transportation issue. And I frankly, as
I said in my talk, just believe that
the infrastructure and intrinsic advantages
to the current paradigm, the current fuels,
is just not going to admit a very
large transformation over several decades. AUDIENCE: Well, the
electrified guideways would be powered directly
by electricity off the grid. So it’s the paradigm that wasn’t
really discussed here today. MONIZ: I believe it is net
less efficient, first of all. AUGUSTINE: Please. AUDIENCE: As an
African-American engineer, let me applaud your
FIRST program again. And I wish you all the best. I’m going to
participate next year. A question about your Segway,
and another disruptive technology, bicycles,
after seeing Beijing and the seas of cyclists
running around their pigeons. What does Segway have
[INAUDIBLE] comparing to this? KAMEN: Well, as the speaker
accurately pointed out, a bicycle, even in
China where there’s this huge density
of people standing, a bicycle doesn’t fit with that. It doesn’t stop or back
up or spin in place like a crowd of people. And it doesn’t fit very well
with the trucks and buses that were out there. And we’ve had 100 and some
odd, 125 years in this country to try to figure out how
to make them work together. And most reasonable people, even
the passionate people that love bicycles– and certainly in
many ways a bicycle, if you can use it and have
the help, it is exercise, it is faster, it is cheaper– but the passionate
people even recognize their bicycles don’t belong
mixing with pedestrians for the obvious reasons of
their size and their length and their shape and their
operating characteristics. And they certainly,
unfortunately, wouldn’t do well having
an interaction with a bus at 40 miles an hour. So we need for bicycles to
work a separate infrastructure for them. I think we should put
them in everywhere. That’s a complementary and
not an alternative modality. But if anything, those
pictures prove to me that a bicycle is not
going to be the solution in a pedestrian environment. If 100 of the people you
saw in that intense crowd were on Segways, you
wouldn’t know it. It works very well. And then when they
get out of that, they can cruise along
at a reasonable speed. And each one of them is now
using a legitimate alternative to a car or a bike
inside a highly dense environment of a city. AUGUSTINE: Thank you. Let’s get one here. AUDIENCE: Dean, this question is
about the infrastructure needed for suburban Segway users. I’m sure you’ll be– I’m used to know it. I live in the
Washington DC area and I have a 22 pound electric scooter
that I ride from home a mile to a bus stop. And then I pick it up
and carry it on the bus and take it to a subway
that I take to go downtown. It’s very easy for me to
carry this scooter around. But I’m not sure it
would be as easy to carry a Segway onto a bus and then
down to a subway station. Do you have thoughts
as to what it would take to put in place an
infrastructure that would make it practical to use
the Segway in addition to other forms of
public transportation? KAMEN: I have half an answer
to your particular problem and a general
answer to the rest. You said bus and subway. There is actually
a specific case of a woman who rode one
onto a subway in Washington and was told she couldn’t do it. There was a legal issue
over it because we had gone through the trouble of– Washington DC is, I’m
counting among the 45 places where we are expressly legal– and she won. And we are now allowed by right
not only on their sidewalks but to drive into their subways. So that’s an easy
one because you stand on it like every
other strap hanger except it just helps you
a little bit because it’s dynamically stabilizing you. We can’t practically
get them on a bus. A, there are easy ways if
you were serious about it to make public
transportation, like a bus, compatible with them. B, you could avoid the bus
piece, or many people can. And C, in reality, just
like 50% of the cars running around major
cities in Manhattan are taxi cabs, fleets of
these that might be in– it would be a whole lot easier
to get the political and social clout to say we’re going to make
this congested, 10-square block area in a downtown,
quote, pedestrian only if people knew
that that meant there’ll be a few
thousand of these things to just bop around there. So making a different model
of their accessibility, making different technologies
that can carry them, and changing slightly your
route profile hopefully will allow them, at least for
a reasonable number of people, to be part of the solution. AUGUSTINE: I’m sorry. We’ve only got of time
for one more question. So we’ll give it to you, sir. I’m sorry. AUDIENCE: This is a question
regarding the Segway, and I’m similar to the other
infrastructure question. A lot of our cities
and neighborhoods are designed now, especially
those built in the last 30, 40 years, designed
for automobiles. And the engineers
are doing their best to make that all
fit into what we do. I was wondering if you had taken
a look at newer neighborhoods, a la Sun City type
situations, where they’re starting from
scratch, and finding a place for that type of
transportation in those areas. KAMEN: The really good news– I’ll take exception
to the statement that in the last 30
or 40 years, cities have been designed for cars. I think in the last
30 or 40 years, the forces to prevent the
ultimate demise of the city seem to be, they lost out. The good news is, most
major cities in the world were finished. The concrete was set before
the car was invented. The car is now wreaking havoc. But it’s a reversible effect. Los Angeles, for
instance, could be argued as a community
that was built post-car. And yes, it was
designed that way. But the two good pieces
of news, most major cities in the world that already exist
were architected for a highly dense environment
and would do better if cars weren’t
in their downtown, even as we stand here today,
if you could give people a good alternative. And that’s where most of
those billions of people are. Second, places like Sun City
and retirement communities and gated commutes
are ideal for Segway because if you look at the plan
view of most of these places, most of their plan
view is pavement. The last crop you’re
ever going to grow is asphalt. And even in
these very expensive places where real estate is a
premium, they are building them in such a way now
that A, we’re already very compatible if
you said we’re legal. For instance, most
suburban environments in the last 20 years have
been built with no sidewalk structure, zero. But these gated communities
all have these alternatives. So in the new gated
community, Sun City, we win. But the really, really
big answer to me is, in that set of
cities that’s going to take the 800 million people
that will change life as we know it if they all want cars– and they have as much
right to a car as you do– if you look at the next 20 or
30 years of building cities and could say to people,
architect your city assuming it’s not going to be a
high density human environment. However, stripped and ripped
apart by these mechanical boxes full of people, allow your city
to be architected and zoned knowing that a
hyperpedestrian that will move as fast as that
car could have taken him in these areas. If even 5% of the new cities
do that, it will make as much of an impact as all the
stuff we looked at today. AUGUSTINE: Well, I’m sorry. We’re going to have to
cut off the questions here because we are out of time. I think Keith is going to make
just a brief closing remark. Before he does that,
will you join me in thanking our panelists
for a terrific job. Thank you both. KEITH: Norm, thank
you very much. Now, I first came
across Augustine’s laws by being a member
of this committee. And I’m going to
share, since we’re all sharing our favorites, I’ll
share one of my favorites with you, which as I recall
was, projects generally start out slowly and
taper off from there. And that’s something that
we in technology see often. But the Tech Day
program, I think, has been the exception
that proves the rule. For us, it has really been
just a wonderful experience all around. Norm, Ernie, Dean,
thanks to each of you. One more joke for you all. When I die, I want to go
in my sleep like my uncle, not yelling and screaming like
the passengers in his car. Yeah, OK. We’re back to problems, right? My buddy Eric Vesper,
another alumni, refers to MIT as a place
for the terminally curious. And this passion
for understanding is demonstrated by the fact
that on such a gorgeous day, so many of you came
back in the afternoon, after lunch, to hear
these wonderful thoughts from our speakers rather than
being out in your vehicles enjoying the Big Dig traffic
rerouting and flashing red lights and so forth. One reminder, survey forms. If you’d do them, we’d
really appreciate it. And I’ll leave you
with this thought. Doug Vincent, who will
be chairing the committee beginning in about
60 seconds or so, made us all think about
the point of Tech Day as he served on the
committee this year. We all know what it is,
but why do we do it? And Doug’s contention,
which I think he’s made us all
converts to, was that our opportunity and really
our obligation is to bring and the brightest
minds we can find to share their insights
with a motivated group of thought leaders– all of you folks– who can go out and
make a difference. And I feel like we’ve
done that this year. And I have every expectation
that Doug and the committee will do it again next year. So drive light, and
we’ll see you then. Cheers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *