Final Dialogue

On our final session the topic was engineering in the world. As usual we had a guest lecturer but this time also one of our classmates got up and spoke about the topic. An interesting topic, about which a lot could be written, no doubt but I would like to take this space and write about my own opinion and thoughts on the matter. Well, actually I will narrow the subject down a notch as I am a little bit pressed for time. What I would like to share with you are my views on the importance of engineering in the world of today.

First off, where would we be today without the engineers? Engineers are today’s inventors. Looking back to the Stone Age one could argue it was the engineers of their time that built the first tools and weapons. But fast-forward to our time and engineering is a mundane profession. There are a lot of engineers and they aren’t really considered to be that special anymore, albeit they are needed perhaps now more than ever.

There are a lot of problems in the world, some of which already have a technical solution (thanks to engineers) but the problem still persists (due to finance and politics). Perhaps the time has come to involve engineers in politics. Me and some of my friends were discussing some new political decision when we came to the conclusion that the people who made it happen really couldn’t have a clue what it was about. That is when we started to try and find a single engineer in the Parliament of Finland.

Perhaps if engineers got involved in matters that did not concern them directly they could change the world for the better? Engineers are used to think in terms of practicality, numbers and absolutes. Either a structure will hold or it will not, there is no maybe, and perhaps this view on things is what is needed in politics?

If we were to look at it from the viewpoint of there not being any clean drinking water in large parts of the poor world. Is it due to engineers not being able to clean water, transport it to houses and transport wastewater away? I think not. In many places waste is dumped in the streets and this creates a poisonous environment, is that because engineers have yet to create a method for collecting waste and disposing of it? I think not. Many places lack a public transportation system, is that because engineers have failed to invent a vehicle large enough to transport several people at once and build a structure on which said vehicle could travel? I think not. A lot of people die needlessly because of diseases easily cured, is that because of engineers? Well that is because of lack of medical personnel, but a lot of the tools M.D.’s use are created by engineers and the machinery used when manufacturing medicine is created by engineers.

I think you see my point. Now we stand at the crossroads. Engineers have done their part for the world already, now it is time for the other professions to stand up and do their part or the engineers really do need to involve themselves in matters that are actually not a part of their profession?

ICT

Our last lecture was an E-lecture, meaning that everything was found on the net (a recorded lecture and two videos on youtube). ICT stands for Information Communications Technologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_and_communication_technologies). That this lecture was made as an E-lecture suited the topic really well. Below is a map (taken from Wikipedia) that shows how much money is spent in different locations on information and communications technology.

ICT is something that is deeply integrated with everything else in today’s world. It affects the economy and society perhaps more than we think. A lot of the things we do are somehow connected to the internet or some similar kind of network of computers (banks etc.). Just think about it, if it all were to go away today you would not have a computer, smart phone or mobile phones for that matter, internet, e-mail, credit/bankcards etc. A lot, and I mean a lot, of people would be without a job and those still with a job would have a much harder time doing it.

For this reason it should come as no surprise that the poorer countries in the world are investing in ICT. They may not have the same amount to spend as the western world but they’re doing a good job nevertheless. Since the economy of several poor countries are still dominated and controlled by the government many may say that they should get the necessities for their people first before they start spending on “luxuries” such as computers and such.

Albert Butare said in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UYBw0nSr1o&feature=related) in response to the statement that they should try to get the necessities to all of their people before they start to buy computers that clean drinking water, sufficient food and good shelter and computers and internet are not mutually exclusive. Rwanda aims to be a knowledge based economy by 2020.

Butare may have a point. Getting computers and internet might prove a wise decision, since if they help to get the economy going then the government will get back the money spent in a short amount of time and then that money can be spent on getting the necessities. Think of it like this; either they give you a small amount of money daily that you buy food for but it is not sufficient to buy the amount you would need or they do not give you any for a period of time and after that you get money daily with which you can buy enough food. I am not saying that it is a good solution but I can see why they do as they do. And let’s face it, in many poor countries there simply isn’t enough money to help everyone but if they get their economy going there would be enough money to go around. The problem, however, is that it takes time and money to get money.

My personal opinion is that you really need a little of both, spend some money on ICT and other venues that might generate income and some money to those that need it today to live.

Transportation II

In this workshop we were paired up and were given a couple of topics to choose one from. I and my partner chose one that was about the future of public transportation. We were supposed to dream up a scenario and then during one minute pitch it to the teachers and the rest of the class. I really liked our idea so I thought I ought to spin it a bit further here.

So on to our idea, it was basically to combine the taxi service with the public transportation service (in this case mainly busses). Our idea would work of off existing infrastructure and require minimal modification to the existing structures. It would use technology that already exists (or are in late-stage development).

The key element is small driverless cars. These cars would fit up to 5 persons (a whole family) and would thusly be somewhat private and could replace an own car. The system itself would utilize the existing bus-stops as destinations and only travel between them. At every bus-stop there would be a button to call upon one of these cars and then you can choose your end-destination (another bus-stop) and it will travel straight there.

The way the cars would be able to drive themselves works of the principle of sensors in the car that senses a metal strip or metal spikes imbedded in the asphalt and via that an onboard computer knows where it is. Then there would have to be other sensors that would make the car stop in case there is something in front of it. There has been a lot of research into these kinds of cars by the big manufacturers and some prototypes have been tested. Even toy manufactures like the idea, as an example can be given this LEGO car (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM-YwHk9mPI), so if toys can do it then why not real cars?

As we kept digging deeper we came to the conclusion that this would work best in the inner-city and that there could be a small parking lot at each bus-station with enough space for 2-3 cars so that there would always be a free car. Then we would have a central garage from where a car is sent out whenever a spot at any bus-stop becomes free. With enough cars the net could be widened to cover the entire country.

The system itself would be controlled via a central computer and thusly easily configured as a “normal” bus-system if needed, so that for example during the day there would always be several cars arriving at the same time so there would be same amount of spaces as in a bus. They would then travel a certain route and pretty much act the same way as the buses today. Then during the evening they would only drive when needed. The beauty of this system is the ease with which it can be modified from a bus-style system to a taxi-like system. Any type of in-between usage can also be done, like if you call upon the car and another car with empty spaces is nearby it could pick you up on its way to another destination, much like car-pooling. All that is needed to change the principle they work on is a few key-strokes on a computer.

This system would only work if it is adapted with full force. If only a few cars are used on a test basis then the “availability” would not be a part of the test and without that the system will most likely fail. But if the system would be adapted then there is nothing but money that stands in the way of widening the net and by doing that replacing also the trains and in time probably all other cars in the whole country. It would be one single entity that would handle all the public transport in the country except for the air traffic. A beautiful thought, and already implementable. Just a matter of money, as always.

Transportation I

This time we had a lecture by Dr Khan Rahaman via webcam. That he could be halfway around the world while giving us a lecture only goes to show what technology is capable of in this day and age.

First he talked about what urban transportation planning is, then gave us some basic facts of urban mobility, then something about the challenges involved and asked if we need to make the planning sustainable. After this the different aspects involved in sustainable urban transportation planning.

Personally I felt the red thread through all the challenges was the government. The five pillars were environmental, social, economic and finance, governance and technology. The government has the power to affect all of these areas either through finance (carrot) or law and penalties (stick).

There are a lot of researcher currently occupied with the problems concerning the transportation itself and the socioeconomic issues therein lays but are anyone looking into how to get the government onboard? I mean, even a perfectly laid plan will fail if there was no consideration as to the government “putting sticks in the spokes”. The reasons are multiple; corruption, fear, pressure from somewhere, lack of knowledge, greed or simply their own mind.

But on to the actual transportation. Making the transportation sustainable should start with the means of transportation. The means should be environmental-friendly and cost effective. Environmental friendly is easy enough to understand but what does cost effective mean? Usually it means the least cost per person per transported mile but what is included therein? How do you count in such things as comfort and safety during the transportation, how many times a day should the same route be offered and how far will people be willing to walk to and from the bus-stop, metro-station or similar gathering point? In the western world there has been several studies regarding this but how about the developing world? I would dare to venture a guess that they are happy with far less since that is still in many places more than what they have now.

Adding a few key-routes so that people would have access to work, school and hospital would dramatically improve their situation in the developing world. The transportation could be organized only a few times a day and that would already be sufficient to provide the poor with more than ample workplaces. Creating public transport does not mean that there has to be a lot of different routes travelled multiple times a day, sometimes all that is needed is for people to get to and from the place of work.

Basically “sustainable” means that it can go on for a long time. So in the sense of providing a possibility for work to the poorest in developing countries, sustainable transportation could be a bus going to the work place in the morning and home after work is done and paid for by the company. Sometimes it is better to do the improvements in small increments since that could be the only way to guarantee that the whole thing doesn’t collapse under its own weight, a small community has no chance to sustain a widespread collective transportation system without subsidies from the city/government.