We’re looking for a Policy Economist to tease smart answers to hard questions out of big data
Uber is a fascinating enterprise. I think they are going to change cities globally. Not just reform the sclerotic taxi monopoly. Here is an example:
Urban transportation has looked the same for a long time – a really long time – thanks in large part to regulatory regimes that don’t encourage innovation. We think it’s time for change. We’re a tech company sure, and we’re working in the transportation space, but at the end of the day we’re disrupting very old business models. Our Public Policy team prefers winning by being right over some of the darker lobbying arts, and so we’re looking for a Policy Economist to tease smart answers to hard questions out of big data. How do the old transportation business models impact driver income? What effect if any is Uber having on the housing market or drunk driving or public transit? To what extent are the different policy regimes in New York City and Taipei responsible for different transportation outcomes? Just a few of the questions we want you to dig on.
Read their placement ad for the full description of the opportunity. And note the Perks:
- Travel like a European diplomat: employees are showered with Uber credits
- Ground floor opportunity at a fast growing company that is changing the face of transportation worldwide
- As an early member of our business operations team, you’ll shape the business direction of the company
- We’re not just another social web app: we’re moving real assets and real people around their cities
- We have access to an amazing list of advisors and investors that we actively engage
If I were a young economist that would look like a big chance.
Michael B Sullivansees the implementation of Amazon PrimeAir much the way I do, as the last part of integrated logistics:
Taking as the basis for conversation a world in which both drones and driverless vehicles are technically possible and easy-to-use (I don’t think either are right around the corner), then I think you use both for your delivery.
Forget last-mile delivery, this is more about “last 15ish miles” and “last quarter mile.” You send your driverless big old truck out with hundreds of packages. It has with it a small fleet (maybe 5-10) of drones that handle the last quarter mile of the delivery. Your truck trundles along on big streets that can accommodate it; the drones blitz out with packages and back over short distances, charging up from the big batteries of the truck on a rotation. This allows you to deliver far heavier packages (the drones don’t need a battery capable of delivering X kg over 15km, they need a battery capable of delivering X kg over 0.5km), at overall lower cost (the majority of your trip is via low-energy rolling along roads, not high-energy helicoptering), but with the same convenience of the actual delivery (no giant truck moving along narrow residential streets, no need for some kind of klutzy mechanical linkage between a robotic vehicle and your drop-box at your house). It’s probably less legitimately awful in terms of aviation control, too.
This is pure speculation – but it is an exciting spec. Not all of this will happen, but possibly other big opportunities will emerge. This is just a sample:
So, step one: Take over taxi industry. Step two: Kill ownership. From there, who knows what could happen in the long term? Uber could start using self-driving cars made by Google (one of its investors) to eliminate the need for human drivers, driving down its costs even more. It could introduce a near-instantaneous delivery service to rival Amazon’s drones. It could roll out a subscription service, akin to Amazon Prime, that would include perks like predictive transportation, so that, for example, when Uber sees an appointment on your Google calendar for a cross-town meeting, it sends a car to your office automatically at the right time. There’s no reason that other companies couldn’t try to do these things, too. But Uber has first-mover advantage, and it’s got most of the kinks – customer interface, payment, fleet management, supply-and-demand considerations – worked out already, making it a prime candidate to beat competitors to new product areas.
The result of Uber’s efforts, in other words, could be the creation of a techno-metropolis, in which people and goods are ferreted around seamlessly and, perhaps, automatically. It would be like something out of a sci-fi movie. And Uber would be standing at the center of it all, collecting a cut of every transaction.
You never know where the next shipping container will come from.
This August 9 Bill Gates dispatch on the multi-modal shipping revolution is a must read, which begins with this:
In the second half of the twentieth century, an innovation came along that would transform the way the world did business. At first, some people wrote it off as a fad. Others kept at it, convinced that it was going to have a huge impact. Some of the companies that made big bets on this tool were very successful, while others ended up going under. Ultimately, it helped accelerate the globalization that had already been under way for centuries.
I’m not talking about software. I’m talking about the shipping industry, and in particular an innovation you might not have thought much about: the shipping container. It is the subject of an excellent book I read this summer called The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger, by a former Economist editor named Marc Levinson. The Box is mostly about globalization, but there is also a larger story here that touches on business and philanthropy more broadly.
For centuries, cargo ships were loaded and unloaded by hand, one crate at a time. Each crate might have a different destination, which made the whole process slow and expensive. In 1956, a trucking magnate named Malcolm McLean had a clever idea: Instead of unloading a trailer’s worth of crates onto a ship, why not put the whole trailer on the ship?
It was the beginning of a revolution in the way goods move around the world. Shipping lines ordered bigger and bigger ships to accommodate the aluminum boxes that soon became the standard container. Port cities from New York to Singapore raced to modernize their facilities to accommodate the larger ships.
Do read Bill's complete review, then read The Box!
Kimball says he can imagine ETNZ going to the courts. As Luke said “Noooooooooooo!”
Recently Kimball posted a moving and fascinating personal log of sailing aboard the US Coast Guard 295-ft sail training ship EAGLE.
(…) Throughout our three-day passage from Portland to the Golden Gate, the ship received visits from service helicopters and cutters, all eyes out to see the Eagle. Their Eagle. I began to get it. What’s hard to put into words. Eagle is magic.
On our last day out the wind piped up and the old girl was hauling the mail . . .
© Kimball Livingston
We greatly enjoy Kimball’s writing. This piece is a wonderful example, which Kimball has annotated with a number of his original photos.
(…) Through the Coast Guard Foundation, I met remarkable people. One of them was Lieutenant Commander (soon to be promoted) Alda Seabrands. She was called in for the shouting at a Foundation fundraiser.
Alda had been flying a pollution patrol over Puget Sound (meaning, no rescue jumper), when her helicopter was diverted to SAR. A fishing skiff had capsized, spilling two people into white water. The chopper made the scene quickly, dropped a basket, and one man climbed in. He was hauled aboard and the basket lowered again. The second man put one arm over the edge of the basket, then rolled unconscious. Alda told her copilot, “It’s all yours, Binky.”
OK, she didn’t exactly say that, and I’m sure the events, however dire and hurried, were more complicated. But Alda Seabrands was flying as Pilot In Command when she, in full awareness, left her post. As a certain Admiral put it to me, “We had to decide whether it was a court-martial or a medal. We decided it was a medal.”
Just don’t miss it – get on over there.
Physical chemist and entrepreneur John Morgan wrote a fascinating post for Brave New Climate in January. The possibilities of the US Navy and Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) research underscore the importance of innovation to deliver energy and especially transport fuel solutions that are workable (i.e., solutions that are compatible with Roger Pielke’s Iron Law).
The seawater CO2 extraction is a big win if the costs hold at scale, because the costs look to be MUCH lower than direct air capture. If the huge energy inputs required are supplied by nuclear (especially if the nuclear supply includes 800C process heat via high temperature gas reactor), then the synfuel is long-term carbon neutral. Innovation in direct air capture is still extremely important because it is clear that the planet will greatly exceed current carbon goals before it becomes truly zero carbon.
Two papers published last year described a new approach to zero emissions synfuel, looking at direct carbon dioxide extraction from seawater. The new insight in these papers is that CO2 is very soluble in seawater, where the concentration is about 140 times higher than in the atmosphere. This could make seawater extraction a lot cheaper than direct air capture.
Please read John’s entire post – it is well-sourced and well-written, and I believe accurate.
NASA has been researching Blended Wing Body (BWB) aircraft, building a series of larger and larger remote controlled experimental planes. NASA has recently announced a carbon-composite based manufacturing process that they think will enable production of sufficiently strong structures for commercial use.
Wikipedia on BWB: aircraft have a flattened and airfoil shaped body, which produces most of the lift, the wings contributing the balance. The body form is composed of distinct and separate wing structures, though the wings are smoothly blended into the body. By way of contrast, flying wing designs are defined as a tailless fixed-wing aircraft which has no definite fuselage, with most of the crew, payload and equipment being housed inside the main wing structure.
A blended wing body has lift-to-drag ratio 50% greater than a conventional airplane. Thus BWB incorporates design features from both a futuristic fuselage and flying wing design. (…)
I’ve not yet found any drawings of the proposed composite construction – but Kevin Bullis at MIT Technology Review has this:
The second challenge is building a full-scale version of the aircraft with pressurized cabins that is structurally sound. One reason tubular airplanes have persisted is that it’s relatively easy to build a tube that can withstand the forces acting on it from the outside during flight while maintaining cabin pressure. The hybrid wing design involves a flatter, box-like fuselage that blends with the wings. The flatter structure, which includes some near-right angles, is much more difficult to build in a way that’s strong enough and light enough to be practical.
NASA’s manufacturing process starts with preformed carbon composite rods. The rods are covered with carbon fiber fabric and stitched into place. Fabric is then stitched over foam strips to create cross members. The fabric is impregnated with an epoxy to create a rigid composite structure.
Sections of a fuselage built with the technique were tested and shown to withstand up to the forces that would be applied to a finished aircraft. Tests also showed that when enough pressure was applied to cause the parts to fail, the stitching used to make the structure stopped cracks from spreading—a key to avoiding catastrophic failure in flight.