 |
|
|
|||||
Management at the Bay Area transportation startup Glydways wants you to be clear about what the company is not: It may plan to move people in futuristic autonomous pods, but its not hyperloop-grade vaporware. And its funding by big-name Silicon Valley investors does not make it a ride for the 1%. Public transit for everyone, everywhere, says founder Mark Seeger.But Glydways is starting smaller than that. Its first green-lit project (after a temporary test track now under construction next to an abandoned mall in Richmond, Calif.) and others under consideration by local governments will have Glydwayss four-seat electric vehicles plying short on-demand routes between existing business and transportation hubs. [Image: Glydways]That debut pilot efforta half-mile route linking a convention center and arena to the last stop on a people mover outside Atlantas Hartsfield-Jackson International Airportis on a small enough scale to evoke the Vegas Loop that Elon Musks Boring Company opened as a shortcut between three of the halls of the Las Vegas Convention Center.We want to see how well the system operates with various fluctuations of riders showing its ability to scale and that it is indeed a viable transit option, says Krystal Harris, program director for ATL Airport Community Improvement Districts.After two years of free-fare service, that agency and the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority will assess how things worked and if the technology merits expansion.Putting a cap on capexThe $18 million in construction and operational costs that Harris cited may seem steep for such a short distance, but not in the context of U.S. transit construction expenses that have made the country exceptional in the wrong way. For example, the $3 billion Silver Line extension that Washingtons Metro system opened to Washington Dulles International Airport and beyond in late 2022 cost $263 million a mile, including a large rail yard built by the airport. That, however, looks like an outright steal next to other U.S. rail projects, topped by the Long Island Rail Roads East Side Access project in New York and its $3.5 billion a mile expense.Glydways, meanwhile, touts a design for simple, narrow guideways that require neither rails nor electric power via overhead wires or third rails that it says will cost 90% less than traditional transit. [Image: Glydways]We can do it for tens of millions, Glydways CEO Gokul Hemmady says, adding that at-grade costs could run still lower at just $2 to $3 million per mile while elevated paths needed to avoid grade crossings could run $15 million a mile. The moment youre in pedestrian-class infrastructure, your costs plummet, he says. The world knows how to build this.Construction costs of some recent U.S. cyclist and pedestrian infrastructure fall roughly into that minor-league ballpark. A trail being built along the SMART commuter-rail line in Sonoma and Marin counties in California has run about $4 million a mile. Two bridges on the Washington & Old Dominion Trail constructed over wide roads in Arlington and Fairfax counties in Virginia had project costs around $30 million a mile.But a veteran transit consultant who has led projects in North America, Europe, and Australia and New Zealand warned against expense extrapolation. Writes Jarrett Walker: They will have to build out a demo project before we know.No human operators, some operating costsThe operational part of the Glydways pitch involves leveraging autonomous-vehicle advances to provide high-frequency, on-demand service around the clock at fares not that far above traditional transitwith the ability to transport 10,000 people an hour. We offer ride-hailing-like experience at a fraction of the cost, says Hemmady. Pressed for an example, he cites the Oakland Airport Connector, an automated, elevated train that runs between that airport and Bay Area Rapid Transits Oakland Coliseum station for a one-way fare of $7.45. But while those fares covered 96% of the connectors operating costs pre-pandemic, Hemmady says Glydwayss lower costs30% of other modes of transit, the company sayswill let it clear a profit: We are the only mass transit system that is revenue positive.A Glydways vehicle shown off at CES 2025 was all shiny modernity, with a streamlined exterior hiding camera, lidar and radar sensors, and large doors that slid open to reveal a clean plastic interior with tap-to-pay terminals by thosedoors. The closest visual parallel: the pod-like Zoox robotaxis now rolling around Vegas in test drives.The lack of human operators or attendants has led some critics to raise safety concerns, but Glydways emphasizes that short waits at stations and the limited number of passengers per vehicle will keep it safe. [Animation: Glydways]Older, almost as small-scale personal rapid transit systems built on older autonomous technologysuch as one that runs between campuses of West Virginia University in Morgantown, W. Va.have operated without incident for decades.Larger automated-train systems rely on a combination of surveillance and patrolling. For example, Vancouvers SkyTrain equips its driverless trains with emergency intercom systems and contact systems while having attendants and transit police at stations.Next stopsAfter the Atlanta pilot, Glydways has advanced to final stages of consideration in a San Jose project to link that citys Caltrain and Amtrak train station with San José Mineta International Airporta 3.4 mile route that Google Maps estimates as a seven-minute drive but a 40-plus-minute transit adventure.Glydways says it can build that mostly elevated route, with its vehicles taking eight minutes between the station and the airport, for under the citys $500 million cost cap but isnt specifying a cost estimate. The city council should be voting on its proposal, which allows for possible extensions to such nearby traffic generators as Apples headquarters, in the coming weeks. [Image: Glydways]This company has a comparable plan not far north of San Jose in Contra Costa County, where its pitched its technology as an automated transit network to provide transportation from train stations to nearby destinations.And in the Los Angeles suburb of Ontario, Glydways has advanced a proposal to use its vehicles in a tunnel to connect Ontario International Airport with the closest Metrolink commuter-rail station. The Boring Company had earlier offered a version of the Vegas Loop concept but abandoned that bid in 2022.Glydwayss proposition of robotic transportation has the advantage of not having to coexist with human-driven traffic like robotaxis like Waymo. And the company has the advantage of funding from such deep-pocketed investors as the VC firm Khosla Ventures and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.But in the realm of transit, self-driving technology isnt something Glydways invented, and many transit agencies outside the U.S. already employ it on higher-capacity subway and light-rail lines. And as autonomous mobility continues to advance on public roads, Walker suggests that established transit operators will be able to make better use of it than any startup that has to pour new concreteeven if the technology goes into something as unfancy as buses.Says Walker: If driverless technology becomes available, debugged, and socially accepted, there will be all kinds of applications, including much bigger-vehicle services that will be a better use of scarce space in dense cities.
Category:
E-Commerce
Project 2025 called for the privatization of all sorts of government agencies and services, and Elon Muskwho has been helping enact that plansaid this week that the U.S. should privatize Amtrak specifically, calling the national passenger rail service a sad situation. Its not the first time Amtrak privatization has been suggested, or that the rail system has been criticized. Train travel in the U.S. is notoriously lacking: Huge regions of the country arent serviced by rail; trains are often delayed or have infrastructure issues; and tickets can be expensive, making driving or even flying more affordable for many people. But privatization wouldnt solve those issues, experts say. Instead, it could add operational costs, deteriorate service, result in higher fairs, and still leave the system unprofitable. Musks interest in privatization is another example of the way he has tried to kill government-funded transportation to serve his own interests, notably his Hyperloop project, which undermined high-speed rail efforts in California. Musks conflicts of interest Musk and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency have taken unprecedented steps to shrink the federal government. While dismantling those services, Musk has also attempted to further his own companies, for example pushing his Starlink broadband product as a solution to outdated air-traffic control systems. Musk has also targeted agencies that specifically investigated or fined his companies. [Musk] has some power and authority, it seems now, to sell off pieces of federal work and assets, but he also seems to have his hand out to get some of these contracts, says Donald Cohen, director of In the Public Interest, a nonprofit research and advocacy group, and author of The Privatization of Everything: How the Plunder of Public Goods Transformed America and How We Can Fight Back. Just because of that, hes not the right voice to be listening to on how to make government better, because hes clearly got some interest in getting his hands on multibillion-dollar contracts. In a 2015 biography of Musk, author Ashlee Vance wrote that part of Musk’s motivations behind announcing the Hyperloop were to force the cancellation of California’s high-speed rail development. (Despite getting hundreds of millions of dollars in fundingeven some from the 2021 infrastructure billthe Hyperloop company shut down in 2023.) Musk has voiced animosity toward mass transit for years, instead sharing his preference for private cars. And he has an interest, of course, in selling Teslas. Privatized Amtrak: Higher costs, worse service, safety concerns Still, Musk isnt the only one to suggest privatizing Amtrak; its been a conservative talking point for years. In 2003, urban planning expert Elliott Sclar wrote a report for the Economic Policy Institute in response to that faction, called Amtrak Privatization: The Route to Failure. The passenger rail service is blamed for failing to show a profit, he wrote. But this insistence that Amtrak should be profitable is an effort to impose a highly selective business model on what is really a public service. If Amtrak were privatized, it could actually mean fewer rail options for the country. A private model would likely eliminate rural routes with low ridership that dont make as much money as more popular ones. (Amtraks state-sponsored routes, in contrast, dont have profit goals because the states simply want to provide residents with ridership options.) Cohen points to the privatization of hospitals as an example of this effect: Rural hospitals are closing because there arent enough patients, he says. The market is exactly the wrong place to put something if you want a rail transportation system that meets the needs of all of America. Amtrak has a unique structure; technically it operates as a for-profit company, not a public authority, but the president appoints its board of directors and the federal government is its majority stockholder. It also gets funding from both federal and state sources depending on the type of route. Privatizing Amtrak wouldn’t necessarily make it cheaper to operatewhich is true for any entity, as all the business expenses (executive compensation, shareholder returns, debt) would still be there, plus a private company would seek to maximize profits by cutting costs and charging more. That could happen by paying workers less, reducing staffing, or cutting corners that would affect safety. Employing fewer workers is a safety issue itself, because overworking a short staff can lead to fatigue and errors, an issue the freight rail industry has been dealing with in recent years. After cutting costs, a privatized Amtrak could also raise prices for consumerseither on tickets, or by adding extra charges for things like baggage. Weve already seen private airlines take these steps, increasing baggage fees and charging other junk fees on top of base ticket prices. Its also often more expensive to fly to a smaller town or spoke city than to a major airport hub, becausejust like for rural rail linesthe demand for those routes isnt as high. The privatization of British Rail is an example of these impacts, and is largely seen as a failure. Once state-owned, British Rail was privatized in the early 1990s by the right-wing Tory government. Afterward, one union report revealed that at least 1.5 billion pounds (nearly $2 million) leaks out of Britains railways every year because of its operating companies, subcontractors, or other costs; little of that is reinvested in the railway. For passengers, rail costs in Britain are almost 8% higher than they were before privatization. After privatization, British Rail also experienced notable safety issues, including four fatal accidents that led to 49 deaths. Britain has since reversed course, passing a bill in 2024 to renationalize its ral services. Privatizing Amtrak wouldnt totally erase the need for federal transit funding, either. Brightline West, a private high-speed rail line in the works between Las Vegas and Rancho Cucamonga, California, once said that project would require no capital or operating funding from the government. But its since sought, and received, a $3 billion federal grant. If private companies took over Amtrak, they also wouldnt have the right to operate on freight tracks, which own 97% of Amtraks route network. Amtrak has that right through federal statutes, but it’s not transferable to private companies. Amtrak is almost profitablebut thats not the point Though Amtrak has never made a profit, its business has been growing. The rail service saw an all-time high ridership record in 2024, and has plans to double its ridership by 2040. Amtraks business performance is strong. Ridership and revenue are at all-time highs, and transformative projects are underway that will greatly improve the customer experience, a spokesperson told Fast Company. By maintaining this momentum, Amtrak says it’s “on track to reach operational profitabilityfor the first time in historyduring this administration. Privatizing Amtrak now could jeopardize that progress, Cohen says. But still, profitability isnt the point, especially when you consider the benefit rail transportation provides. This goes back to the idea of Amtrak being a public serviceeven a public good. By Cohens definition, to be a public good a service shouldnt be something we need individually, but rather something everyone needs, and something that we all benefit from having. Even if someone doesnt have children, for example, public education benefits them because its in everyones interest to have an educated nation. The same argument could be made for transportation. Train travel options help prevent more car and air travel, which have disastrous environmental effects, and which come with other costs like traffic. Rail also helps people live in many different places, or be able to travel around for tourism. For mobility, for transit, its in our interest for people to get to work, Cohen says, without polluting our environment.
Category:
E-Commerce
Healthcare.gov, the government health insurance marketplace website, launched in October 2013 only to buckle under the weight of just 2,000 simultaneous users. As millions of Americans stared at error messages and frozen screens, a political crisis unfolded, but so did a new era of government technology. The result was 18F, an in-house digital services consulting agency that brought Silicon Valley expertise to government, challenging decades of outdated procurement practices and introducing a radical new approach to building digital public services. Founded on March 19, 2014, by Presidential Innovation Fellows, 18F was housed within the Technology Transformation Services department of the General Services Administration, or GSA. The name 18F was derived from the address of GSA headquarters: 1800 F Street. On March 1, 2025, just a few weeks shy of 18Fs 11th anniversary, the Trump administration eliminated the agency and laid off its staff. As a researcher who studies public administration and technology, I have observed the transformational role 18F played in government digital services. The units elimination raises the question of what the future of those services will look like. Impact of 18F 18F served a unique role as an in-house digital consultancy for the U.S. government, drawing on innovative strategies to improve public service through technology. Within 18F, teams consisting of designers, software engineers, strategists, and product managers worked together with federal, state, and local agencies to not only fix technical problems but to build, buy, and share technology that helped to modernize and improve the publics experience with government services. Over nearly 11 years, 18F built an impressive portfolio of successful digital projects that transformed how people interact with the U.S. government. Even if the average person is unfamiliar with 18F, the odds are quite high that they have at least encountered one of its many products or services. For example, 18F supported the Internal Revenue Service in creating IRS Direct File, a free online tax filing tool that provides taxpayers with a simplified filing process. As of today, IRS Direct File is available in 25 states and is expected to serve 30 million eligible taxpayers during the 2025 tax filing season. 18F has been pivotal in modernizing and securing digital systems to help create more streamlined and secure user experiences for the public. For instance, Login.gov is a secure single sign-on platform that simplifies access to multiple government services for users. Perhaps the most notable of 18Fs modernization efforts that touches nearly every aspect of government today is the U.S. Web Design System. The comprehensive design system was developed in collaboration with the U.S. Digital Service in 2015. It helps support dozens of agencies and makes nearly 200 websites more accessible and responsive to user needs. How 18F worked What set 18F apart was its approach. Rather than spending years on giant information technology contracts that often failed to deliver, 18F championed agile development. Agile and lean methodologies have been popular in Silicon Valley startups and software companies for decades due to their flexibility and focus on rapid iteration. By applying agile development principles, 18F focused on breaking down large projects into manageable pieces with incremental improvements based on frequent user feedback. This approach allowed continuous adaptation spurred by user feedback and changing requirements while reducing risk. Another cornerstone of 18Fs innovative approach was its focus on user-centered design. By focusing on the needs of the people who actually used government services, 18F was able to go beyond merely satisfying technical requirements to design digital products that were more accessible and user-friendly. The idea was to understand the end users and the problems they encountered in order to effectively design products and solutions that addressed their needs. It also aimed to provide a consistent user experience and earn the users trust in the services. By prioritizing open-source development and collaboration, 18F also helped to make government IT more affordable. Making project code transparent meant that agencies could reuse the code and reduce the cost of duplicate development efforts across agencies and levels of government. 18F also had a hand in helping agencies develop their own technology capacity, whether by teaching them how to build software using open-source development and agile methodologies or by teaching agencies how to hire and oversee technology vendors themselves. This model was especially beneficial for state and local agencies following 18Fs expansion in 2016 to provide services to state and local government agencies that receive federal funding. End of an era The elimination of 18F marks the end of an era, raising concerns about both current and future technology projects. As of now, there does not appear to be a succession plan, leaving many federal agencies without ongoing support for their digital transformation efforts. Critics also argue that the loss of 18F means the loss of significant technical expertise within the government. These changes come at a time when agencies are experiencing substantial personnel shifts, rendering digital services potentially even more critical. As agencies brace for more personnel cuts, the public may need to rely more on digital services to fill the gap amid growing staffing shortages. Since the news was announced, current and former 18F team members as well as advocates of the unit have taken to social media platforms, including X, Bluesky, and LinkedIn, to share stories of its successes, honor its legacy, and share 18F resources. Kayla Schwoerer is an assistant professor of public administration & policy at the University at Albany, State University of New York. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Over the past year, a growing number of corporate employers have shown signs of backing away from diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the workplace, amid mounting social pressures and the risk of litigation from right-wing activists. President Trumps recent executive orderswhich explicitly threaten legal action against the private sector over illegal DEI practiceshave only exacerbated those concerns, leading companies to take more forceful action or, at a minimum, reevaluate their diversity programs. In a report released today by the research insights firm Gravity Research, nearly three-quarters of corporate executives claim that potential federal investigations into corporate DEI have been keeping them up at night. This sentiment was nearly universal across the finance sector, with 95% of leaders expressing those concernsin line with reports that Wall Street firms have pared back their DEI initiatives over the last year. When we actually talk to our clients, there’s a lot of question marks around: I thought we were legally compliant, says Gravity Research president Luke Hartig, noting that the group of employers surveyed includes Fortune 500 companies. We don’t have a clear answer to that question just yet. However, the fact that 74% said that they fear federal investigations tells us that its at least creating a sense of fear and anxiety among these large companies, even if we’re still uncertain as to exactly how far this can go. The report also captures how many companies have responded to the executive orders and anti-DEI movement, with 64% saying they were redefining or rebranding their DEI functionsa common shift among employers that have altered their DEI programs recently. Many companies reported altering their public messaging on DEI: In 2025 alone, 66% of companies say they have cut back on the use of DEI terminology in their external communications. That can mean curtailing mentions of equity or the acronym DEI, opting instead for terms like inclusion and belonging, which might be less loaded. We know terminology matters, but the work is more important, one executive explained as part of the survey. We are striving to communicate in a way that won’t attract undue attention so we can protect the work versus having to defend the work with external actors.” And yet, many companies are still worried about how their workers may react to these changes, with 60% of respondents saying they expected to see employees mobilize on political or social issues. In fact, the majority of respondents said they were feeling pressure to make an internal statement reaffirming their commitment to inclusion and belonging, according to Hartig, though only 28% have actually done so. Despite all the pushback to corporate DEIand the changes that have already been made at a number of companiesmost of them are still not entirely culling their ranks. Gravity Research found that most employers were not eliminating C-suite DEI roles, though certain sectors were more likely to do so; this shift was especially evident in the consumer staples sector, where 20% of employers had made changes to C-suite DEI positions. Even prior to Trumps executive orders, however, consumer companies and retailers have been particularly vulnerable to the DEI backlash, as evidenced by the response to conservative activist Robby Starbucks social media campaigns over the last year. When [we] talk to the chief diversity officer community, we definitely hear a lot of anxiety about the future of DEI-dedicated functions within companies, Hartig says. But certainly the research shows that they are not getting rid of it all together. As Fast Company has reported, plenty of companies have continued to stand their ground on DEI or have made minimal changes to protect against potential legal risks. That much is also clear from the report, which indicates that 80% of companies are actively monitoring anti-DEI laws and legal challenges, rather than taking immediate action. While a good share of employers have adopted semantic changes, their approach has been more conservative as it relates to cutting DEI programs. About half of respondents have revised DEI trainings, but few have taken more significant steps like cutting employee resource groups. That said, a sizable portion of employers (34%) are now reconsidering their participation in the Human Rights Campaigns annual survey measuring workplace inclusion for LGBTQ+ workers, which can be traced back to the anti-DEI campaign that Starbuck has waged across social media. Several major companiesincluding McDonalds, Target, and Walmarthave already pulled out of the HRC survey in recent months. As Hartig points out, moves like this appear to be motivated more by social pressure than by legal consequences. Gravity Research has found that even companies that have yet to bow out of the survey are now more reticent to advertise their scores publiclywhich many employers have long used to send a signal to LGBTQ+ workers. At least from major companies, we’ve seen virtually no publicization of their HRC scores, Hartig says. This was something that companies previously touted and used as a sign of being an inclusive employer. Will that change as we get closer to Pride month? Will companies start to talk about that? Maybe. But it certainly reflects a broader movement from the corporate community.
Category:
E-Commerce
President Donald Trump talks of big change in his second term of office. But he’s not forgetting small change, either. Trump ordered the Treasury Department to stop making pennies with a February 10 sentence on his social media account that followed years of conservatives pointing out that putting a copper-coated zinc disc in your pocket costs the government more than a centalmost 4 cents today. Will Trump’s order make the penny disappear? There is no sign that the U.S. Mint will stop pressing pennies in Denver and Philadelphia, and Mint officials did not respond to requests for clarification this week. But the presidential penny pledge is already being felt in one niche world. It’s a little-known world that depends on buying pennies wholesale, loading them into machines and persuading parents to feed a few dollars into machines that stamp designs on the penniesPaw Patrol, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtlesas they are stretched between metal rollers at funfairs. Small orbits of collectors and craftsmen have developed around them. And without the penny, the whole thing faces an uncertain future. The last pennies? New copper pennies vanished from circulation in 198273 years after the first Lincoln penny was minted. They were replaced by coins of mostly zinc thinly coated with copper. The solid copper old ones were more pliable and easier to stamp, making them hot items for kids at funfairs. Theyll clean em so when they elongate the dino or shark of the printed coin it maintains a ghost image of the printed head of Lincoln, said Brian Peters, general manager of Minnesota-based Penny Press Machine Co. Pre-1982 copper pennies, they bring those. Jeweler Angelo Rosato worked for decades in the 1960s and 70s hand-printing pennies with scenes of their New Milford, Connecticut, hometown and historical and sentimental scenes. Everything was obsessively cataloged, including more than 4,000 penny photographs. Were big fans of the penny. Keep the penny,” said Aaron Zablow of Roseland, New Jersey, who was with two of his sons at the American Dream mall. I like the pennies, his 9-year-old son Mason said. Some dont want the U.S. to stop making cents Critics say the rise of electronic commerce and the billions of pennies in circulation mean the U.S. could stop printing the copper coins tomorrow and see little widespread effect for decades. But some people are watching fearfully to see if Trumps public critique of the penny will affect their business. Alan Fleming, of Scotland, is the owner of Penny Press Factory, one of a number around the world that manufacture machines that flatten and stamp coins. A lovely retired gentleman in Boston sold me over 100,000 uncirculated cents a couple of years ago but he doesnt have any more, Fleming wrote. I will need to purchase new uncirculated cents within the next 12 months to keep my machines supplied and working! Regardless of what happens to niche businesses like Fleming’s, penny defenders say theyre an important tool for lubricating the economy even if theyre a money-losing proposition. Since the invention of money, humankind has wrangled with the question of small change, how to denominate amounts so small that the metal coin itself is actually worth more. In 2003, Thomas J. Sargent and another economist wrote The Big Problem of Small Change, billed as the first credible and analytically sound explanation of why governments had a hard time maintaining a steady supply of small change because of the high costs of production. Why pay money for coins? In a digital world with the line blurring between the real and the virtual, tactile coins have been reassuring. What this all tells you about the United States as a country is that its an incredibly conservative country when it comes to money, said Ute Wartenberg, executive director of the American Numismatic Society. Pennies, nickels, dimes, and quarters are sometimes designed by artists laser-sculpting tiny portraits of leaders and landmarks using special software. Its pretty cool because when I tell people what I do I just say my initials are on the penny, Joseph Menna, the 14th chief engraver of the United States Mint, said in the 2019 film Heads-Up: Will We Stop Making Cents? Fleming is hoping some lobbying may help: Maybe we should take a trip to Washington and ask to speak to President Trump and Elon Musk and see if we can cut a deal on buying millions of pennies from them.” By Michael Weissenstein and Joseph B. Frederick, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] next »