Case Study: Traffic Lights and Smartphone Sights

Ground Level Traffic Lights
Ground level traffic lights, taken from Dezeen.com

In which Hannah and Ben discuss the merits of reflecting user behaviours rather than resisting them

HK: At least three towns that I’ve heard of in the last year – in Australia, Germany and The Netherlands – have embedded traffic lights at pavement level to warn Smartphone users that they are passing onto a road.

Of course, I found this on the internet…  so groups are either praising it as a great idea, or they’re vehemently arguing that solutions like this are just spending a lot of money to help ‘bad behaviour’. There is a tendency to throw moralities at new technologies, whether they are inherently harmful or not, but it’s true that smartphone users don’t always have their sights set upwards, at street signs and corners, or road edges.

BK: One of the funnier sights is seeing a smartphone user walk straight into a bus shelter or lamppost.  Except when it was me!

HK: What a divvy. [Trans: ‘Idiot’ in Geordie dialect]. Though a lot of people I’ve met (including me sometimes) don’t know the names of streets they pass through daily because they’re using lines on their phone map and GPS to guide them. One article, describing the initiative in the Netherlands, calls them ‘smartphone zombies’, which comes across as inherently pejorative. But why shouldn’t cities reflect that actual habits of their citizens?

BK: Well, I guess that you could work that two ways – to what extent should the cities adapt to the habits of the citizen, versus to what extent should the city shape the habits of the citizen.  In this particular area – the very existence of kerbs and traffic lights shape the habits of citizens, in order to separate pedestrian and wheeled traffic. The ‘woonerf’ areas in the Netherlands, shared space in the UK or shared zones in Australia and New Zealand form a contrast. Isn’t this traffic light discussion another version of experimenting with adapt to, vs attempt to shape (aka nudge) vs attempt to control? I put three options in deliberately – as if you have two in, then you are limited to “either or” – a dualist approach which limits our thinking.  About as stable as a two-legged stool.

HK: Back to the subject please.

BK: Ah well. Anyhow whilst there are all sorts of positive outcomes of adapting to citizen habits, even with a bit of nudge: we have to take secondary consequences into consideration. For instance, the £1M cost to the NHS of falls because of the new ‘healthier/low pollution’ trams in Edinburgh; the public health benefits around encouraging more physical activity, vs ‘keeping people safe’ with kids walking to school.

HK: Then again, floor level traffic lights might reduce car/pedestrian collisions, safe police and medical services time and money. Inserting safety measures into residents’ lines of sight does seem pretty standard practice, like making sure stop signs can be seen from car level, or traffic lights at side-window level for the front car in a queue. – a habit in France, but not in the UK. Attempts to change the pattern to cope with ‘smartphone zombies’ could, I suppose, use other means,like more intense ‘crossing’ sounds, for example.

BK: But these could be could be startling and harmful to anyone else in the area. Light change seems fairly innocuous. Though – consider the partially sighted!  Road markings, and traffic lights, should be visible in all contingencies.

HK: And implementation for embedded lights is quite dear. There must be better options than digging them into the road. For example, there’s a huge trend right now into upscaling city lighting systems with new nodes, effective sensors [which should be next week’s blog] – why not attach a projection of floor level lighting?

BK: A colleague of mine – Steve Smith at Northumberland – pointed this one out – if you project from existing street furniture, then you don’t have to dig into the road surfaces; you can project from a point so it’s much easier to maintain; and the effect works (though admittedly not as effectively) even if the surface is covered with mud, water or snow.

But that’s just the practical. We have to consider all citizens – from the harried parent with children in hand, the hearing or sighting impaired, through to the inattentive mobile phone user. If we were being really sophisticated, we could consider combining sensors with warnings – so if someone stepped across a line into a dangerous junction, then not only would the lights under their feet flash, but a warning sound could go off.  

HK: So it’s passive and quiet – until needed, though I’d imagine that software like that isn’t cheap. But we’ve established that our cities aren’t full of zombies, with strategists as the brains:

BK: Well, sometimes around the Bigg Market in Newcastle on a Saturday morning?

HK: I’ll give you that. But civic action is most effective at keeping its citizens happy and healthy if it responds effectively to all behaviours, and their dangers.

BK: Seriously, a major mistake – at least in my opinion – is to think of a city, or indeed, any sufficiently complex system, as a machine that can be designed in which each cog behaves. It isn’t.  It’s an active mix of behaviours, interactions and decisions. This is an evolution of behaviour problem, not an engineering problem.

Setting up an environment in which that independence of decisions is understood and respected, but people are firmly guided away from behaviour which damages others (in this case, speeding, jumping red lights and jaywalking without care) requires us to consider each decision maker and shape the communal environment such that we strike a balance we can all live with.  

HK: So the advantage of ‘Smart’ in this case is that we can adapt that environment more accurately to a greater variety of behaviours?

BK: Yup.  So we can support a richer, more diverse environment.  Which loops neatly back to our second blog – ‘Why bother with Smart’’!

 

Advertisements

Where is a Smart City? (Part One)

 

In which Hannah and Ben discuss where we can find a smart city, and whether it can be defined by physical location.

HK: On the first blog, ‘What is a Smart City?’, Gary asked

‘‘How might a Smart City be defined around the globe?’’

There are a couple of discussions I’d like to have over ‘Where is a Smart City?’ Is it digital, or physical? What are the integral elements of a ‘Smart’ environment, and who has it? What does a city space mean for migrant or minority populations? (We’ll cover these in later blogs)

Who knew ‘where’ was such a loaded question!

BK: The definition of ‘Smart City’ is heavily dependent on how we talk about a ‘City’ – I had thought that was moderately well understood – but, thinking about it, whilst a lot of people do live in city centres, it isn’t by any means the only pattern.

HK: And ‘City’ has become a pretty relative term. Does it include where people commute from, suburban to urban? Does it include the resources used by a city, or its tourists, and their origins?

Being a country-bumpkin myself, I’m resistant to an urban-centric approach to global development: megacities can be a huge drain of youth and resource to relatively small spatial areas. ‘Smart’ investment is best focused on people, money and skills capable of moving around not only efficiently but effectively – these aren’t necessarily place-bound resources.

However, the sheer number of connections, digital and physical, in close urban environments makes them a crucible primed for the injection of innovative technologies. There are a huge number of problems of safety and efficiency to solve just by the sheer frequency of their occurrence. And a city-state like Singapore is a living lab: living space is dense, it’s politically pretty stable, the island is covered by a well integrated mesh network both physical and digital.  Smart solutions can be tried and tested through tightly woven populations and scaled upwards and outwards quickly and adapted to specific microcultures and needs. But, what works for Singapore might not work for urban models insulated by isolated rural populations, as in parts of Australia, Ecuador, India, and the US.

BK: Hmm, I’d like to pick up on those terms: scale up and scale out:

Scale up in this case is to test in a known environment and expand within that environment.  This is in one sense the ‘easy’ version. House not big enough? Build another floor on top. Computer processor not fast enough? Buy a faster processor. This tends to hit limits – the foundation of the house isn’t strong enough; the silicon simply can’t go faster even with water cooling.

Scale out is to test in one environment then propagate between environments whilst maintaining some level of co-ordination and control. Farmhouse not big enough? Grow to a hamlet, village, town, city. Computer not fast enough? Spread and divide the load across multiple computers.  The big advantage of scale-out is that if done well it can go much, much further than scale-up. The challenge is that it needs some system to distribute load – roads, power, water for a town; complex intelligent load allocation for large ‘cloud’ systems.

Scale-out to allow smart development across multiple environments requires a considerable degree of smart!

HK: Perhaps, but scale up builds on what you already have, scale out adapts through the environment. Smart Cities work on both trajectories – which is why the term is used pretty broadly to describe cities around the world investing in any degree of ‘Smart’, based on their current needs and resources. Small, rural, huge, high-tech city arenas are making use of the technology they already have, like streetlights and public transport, and building on it, then adapting metadata and learning outcomes to different environments and expanding those in response. This is because these cities face precise and localised problems, like gun violence, isolated communities, disrupted transport, poor water supply or heavy pollution.

BK: You’re saying ‘Smart’, then, isn’t a pinnacle to reach or a line to cross, because even the definition of a ‘city’ is malleable, let alone the definition of ‘smart’. It’s a scalable, continuing process.

HK: Exactly. And the next great thing about ‘Smart’ endeavours, of course, is global scale-out: different cities with variant cultures can still stand to benefit from solutions put to use by various ‘Smart’ solutions. Solutions that work in one arena might work effectively in another in a different part of the world: smart solutions to gun violence, such as gunshot detection and police response in New York, might be useful in Rio de Janeiro. The ‘Where’ of a Smart city, then, is also the pragmatic sharing of working solutions. The scale-up and scale-out models demonstrate the importance of ‘smart cities’ being situated at both specifically local and potentially international scales of development.

BK: Then again, this flexing of inter-city and international boundaries raises the issues of digitally outsourced economies: microjobbing apps, popularised by companies such as Uber, move a lot of economic flow out of cities – the money ‘jumps’ from payer to uber to provider, which removes (disintermediates) the middle local economic tier – the taxi companies and bus companies – in favour of a remote technology company.  Conversely, crowdfunding programs such as Indiegogo and Kiva allow loans to be made and monitored outside an individual’s immediate and potentially financially restricted network, giving them access to resources around the world.

Through different models, we can consider the perspective of ‘where is a city’ differently, from urban density to digital transactions. So in this case there is a ‘boundary’ problem – and that is interesting in all sorts of ways. Including whether a smart city’s needs actually correlate to physical boundaries at all… (To be continued)

What is a Smart City?

BK: Seeing as how this blog is supposed to be about Smart Cities, I thought we could start with the basics: what is a Smart City?  

HK: A small and easy problem then…

BK: Hey, got to start somewhere.  I’d start with a statement – a city is somewhere which acts to concentrate economic activity. People migrate to a city because it is easier to find jobs, make connections, and so establish a community and a career.  To me, a Smart city makes all these things work better (i.e. with fewer barriers to entry, more positive outcomes and fewer downsides) by the deft application of intelligence – oh, and maybe even use of technology.  The technology is only one tool in the box to make a city a good place in which to live, work and play.

HK: So the question is not really, ‘What is a Smart City’? (Maybe we should change the title), but why a city at all? We agree that a city is a place which facilitates connection and participation. Ideally, if we’re going to get fiscal, a city is a place which facilitates innovation and economic output. Despite new technologies making it possible to connect with other individuals over huge distances, people are still moving en masse to civic centers: London, San Francisco, Singapore. For me, the place of a smart city is to enhance the connection and innovation that are characteristic of a successful metropolis.

BK: Yes – it would appear that a city is, at least in an evolutionary sense,  a ‘successful’ way of going on. Success here is not necessarily moral or ethical – it just means that it is a pattern that keeps on re-appearing, and seems to last. The moral and ethical sides form a whole additional area of debate – which would be fascinating and could consume a considerable amount of space, and malt whisky (HK: ok, you’re on..).  But here, at least, we not making moral judgements about what constitutes ‘good’ and ‘bad’, but exploring what happens ‘if’… assuming people are people, not machines or saints. Hence ‘if this goes on’…

HK: So, current ‘Physical Cities’ work because of the density of the connections made within that civic environment, how its network allows citizens to communicate and innovate.

Now, we can develop (or support) a technological overlay that can also make connections without the constraints of geographical distance and location. As well as this, we can establish a technological overlay which catalyses the potential of the very specific local environment of the city.

BK: A ‘Smart City’ is therefore both physical and digital, local and virtual – a new hybrid beasty. We can conceive of a ‘city in function’ which adapts to or goes beyond physical location.

HK: Aye, theorists like Benjamin R Barber talk about ‘Glocality’ – where a city acts as a node within a global network, but I propose the word ‘vlocality’ is equally important: how we understand the interaction between the digital and physical urban networks. (Though this leads to a whole new chat about buzzwords).

BK: Buzzwords indeed….  You mean I’m going to have to read up about it. Darn.

HK: “Darn”?

BK: Anyway, that would mean a ‘smart city’ is an environment that does have a physical space in which people work, live and play. But, that physical space is enhanced, using technology, to make that work as well as we can, allowing more value to be created for any given level of resource use.  And whilst we do start with a city being a bounded area, it does not need to be limited to that  – a smart city could be a dispersed across many locations…

HK: Oh good, another question: where is a Smart City? [link to follow]. And, of course, if city networks evolve naturally, why do we bother with Smart? [link to follow].