Cars

<html><body>
<div>And that, sadly, is that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Australia's auto production industry is no more. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) monthly figures recorded the production of one solitary vehicle in November. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>As recently as 2013 it was common to see 15,000-20,000 vehicles per month rolling off production lines.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, the persistently strong Aussie dollar and high cost of manufacturing in Australia ultimately proved to be an obstacle too far.  </div>
 
<div class="separator"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KB8rLk_emuA/Wk_vB3kA82I/AAAAAAAAn0c/FeEKoG8c4_Y6mVuNjBMxdo0xHEA_P55EQCLcBGAs/s1600/B1.jpg"><img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KB8rLk_emuA/Wk_vB3kA82I/AAAAAAAAn0c/FeEKoG8c4_Y6mVuNjBMxdo0xHEA_P55EQCLcBGAs/s640/B1.jpg" width="640" height="390" data-original-height="812" data-original-width="1326"></a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Department of Employment <a href="http://petewargent.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/the-car-in-front-is-import" target="_blank">projected</a> that the factory closures at Elizabeth in Adelaide (Holden) and Altona in Melbourne (Toyota) could cost 27,500 jobs over the years ahead.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Many in the industry have been employed for more than two decades. And consider how the world has changed since that time - there was no LinkedIn of Facebook back then, for example, and job applications were submitted on paper.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>While the full impact on supply chains is as yet unknown, and despite some better industry readings of late, the manufacturing industry remains in a structural decline, with total employment <a href="http://petewargent.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/a-thousand-new-jobs-per-day" target="_blank">falling again in 2017</a>. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I took a look at <a href="http://petewargent.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/growth-hacking" target="_blank">here</a> at where future growth will come from instead.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>PETE WARGENT is the co-founder of AllenWargent property buyers (London, Sydney) and a best-selling author and <a href="https://petewargent.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">blogger</a>.</div>
</body></html>

pwargent-M4siyDbqQY

Growth after Australia's auto production industry is no more: Pete Wargent

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
Motorists in Sydney and Brisbane probably reckon that they have never seen a bigger weekly change in the petrol price. And they would be right. Nationally, petrol prices jumped by a record 10.9 cents a litre last week. But the price jump was between 17-26 cents a litre in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. The big changes in pump prices would be unsettling for motorists.
Brisbane, Gold Coast and Ipswich were amongst the dearest paces in Australia to buy unleaded fuel in the past week, near $1.65 a litre. Geelong was the cheapest at 137.8 cents a litre.
Petrol prices have now peaked on east coast capital cities – Sydney and Melbourne prices peaked over the weekend and in Brisbane the cycle peaked last Wednesday. Adelaide prices have fallen for nine days. It takes around 10-15 days for petrol prices to fall from the peak to the trough of the discounting cycle. So the message for most east coast capital city motorists is to top up, not fill up. However, Adelaide motorists need to be more vigilant.
Filling up the car with petrol can cost the average motorist $80-90 – the single biggest weekly purchase for most households. While petrol prices are not historically high, they are not historically low either. But peak cycle prices in capital cities near $1.74 a litre may be adding to cautious consumer spending behaviour. Unfortunately there are few signs of relief at the pump. While the wholesale (terminal gate) price has eased 1.2 cents from recent 3-month highs, it is still up by 2.5 cents on a month ago.
Overall, global prices are holding at higher levels. Last week Singapore gasoline prices lifted in Aussie dollar terms to a 6-week high of 70.88 cents a litre. On Friday Brent crude fell by US58 cents or 0.9 per cent to US$63.39 a barrel. And the US Nymex price fell by US81 cents or 1.4 per cent to US$57.77 a barrel. Over the week Brent and Nymex rose by 0.1 per cent. Oil producers are being successful in supporting prices at higher levels by restricting production.
What do the figures show?
According to the Australian Institute of Petroleum, the national average price of unleaded petrol rose by a record 10.9 cents in the past week to 153.0 cents a litre. The metropolitan price rose by 15.1 cents to 155.6 cents a litre but the regional price rose by just 2.3 cents to 147.7 cents a litre.
Average unleaded petrol prices across states and territories over the past week were: Sydney (up 20.3 cents to 154.4c/l), Melbourne (up 17.3 cents to 156.2 c/l), Brisbane (up 26.3 cents to 165.6 c/l), Adelaide (down 4.7 cents to 152.1 c/l), Perth (up 2.0 cents to 146.4 c/l), Darwin (down 0.2 cents to 143.1 c/l), Canberra (up 0.2 cents to 147.8 c/l) and Hobart (up 0.1 cent to 156.2 c/l).
The smoothed gross retail margin (2-month rolling average) for unleaded petrol rose from 13.26 cents a litre to 13.97 cents a litre (24-month average: 13.1 cents a litre).
The national average diesel petrol price fell by 0.2 cents to 149.2 cents a litre over the week. The metropolitan price fell by 0.1 cents to 147.9 cents a litre and the regional price fell by 0.2 cents to 150.3 cents a litre.
Today, the national average wholesale (terminal gate) unleaded petrol price stands at 136.0 cents a litre, down by 1.2 cents over the week. The terminal gate diesel price stands at 134.8 cents a litre, up by 0.4 cents over the past week.
MotorMouth records the following average retail prices for unleaded fuel in capital cities today: Sydney 163.4c; Melbourne 165.3c; Brisbane 162.2c; Adelaide 140.9c; Perth 140.2c; Canberra 147.7c; Darwin 143.2c; Hobart 156.4c.
The key Singapore gasoline price was unchanged last week at US$76. 50 a barrel. In Australian dollar terms, the Singapore gasoline price rose by 12 cents or 0.1 per cent to $112.70 a barrel or a 6-week high of 70.88 cents a litre.
What are the implications for interest rates and investors?
Tax refunds are up around 30 per cent on a year ago. And interest rates are low. So there is plenty of stimulus on offer. Unfortunately consumer sentiment has weakened in recent months. Rate cuts have spooked many consumers and petrol signboards have been showing $1.74 a litre – two factors serving to induce consumer caution.
It’s not just high petrol prices that are unsettling consumers. It’s the fact that prices can vary so much in eastern and southern capital cities.
Many consumers will be hoping for plenty of deals on offer at upcoming ‘Black Friday’ and ‘Cyber Monday’ sales.
CRAIG JAMES is the Chief Economist at CommSec
</body></html>

cjames-5S2v74qSNK

Record weekly lift in national petrol prices: CommSec's Craig James

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Parking is a fiery issue in Australian cities. That’s because cars dominate our cities, supported by decades of <a href="https://theconversation.com/crowded-trains-planning-focus-on-cars-misses-new-apartment-impacts-116514" target="_blank">unbalanced planning decisions</a> favouring space for cars over other land uses or forms of transport. Parking is even an issue in the federal election, with both the <a href="https://theconversation.com/500m-for-station-car-parks-other-transport-solutions-could-do-much-more-for-the-money-114908" target="_blank">Coalition</a> and <a href="https://www.alp.org.au/policies/national-park-ride-fund/" target="_blank">Labor</a> promising to fund more spaces for commuters.
The issue of parking flared up again recently in Melbourne’s inner north. Moreland City Council <a href="https://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/transport-strategy" target="_blank">wants to scrap minimum parking requirements for new apartments</a> around its increasingly dense activity centres.
Victoria’s planning minister, Richard Wynne, gets the final say on this plan – and it might be a “no”. <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/planning-minister-criticises-council-plan-to-axe-car-parks-20190409-p51chm" target="_blank">He said</a> last month the practicalities need more thought and that Moreland must “strike a balance”.
Wynne is right, but not in the way he implies.
Australian cities are generous to cars
Minimum parking requirements were introduced across Australia alongside the rise of cars <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-elephant-in-the-planning-scheme-how-cities-still-work-around-the-dominance-of-parking-space-87098" target="_blank">in the 1950s</a>. These set rigid ratios for parking spaces in different types of new developments.
For example, the <a href="https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/getmedia/5926602c-ab14-46f0-be6f-56dc31c45902/SPP-7-3-R-Codes-Apartments" target="_blank">Western Australia State Planning Policy</a> requires at least at least 0.75–1 parking bay for every one-bedroom dwelling in an apartment building, plus at least one visitor parking space per four dwellings. A <a href="https://walga.asn.au/getattachment/Documents/Cardno_Review-of-LG-Parking-Requirements_Main-Report_vFINAL.PDF.aspx?lang=en-AU" target="_blank">review of parking policy in Western Australia</a> found these requirements are largely based on small, outdated surveys in the United States and do not reflect actual demand for parking in Australia.
A result of these policies is a <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-elephant-in-the-planning-scheme-how-cities-still-work-around-the-dominance-of-parking-space-87098" target="_blank">glut of parking in Australian cities</a>. The local council area of the City of Melbourne has over 215,000 parking spaces. However, 40-60% of households in the area do not own a car and <a href="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/hdp.au.prod.app.com-participate.files/2615/2963/7455/Transport_Strategy_Refresh_-_Background_paper_-_Car_Parking.pdf" target="_blank">around a third of apartment parking spaces are not used</a>.
Removing minimum requirements is an effort by local governments to allow the <a href="https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/building-and-development/urban-planning/melbourne-planning-scheme/planning-scheme-amendments/Pages/amendment-c133-maximum-car-parking-rates.aspx" target="_blank">varying needs of local communities to determine parking outcomes</a>.
But what about tradies, emergency workers, the disabled?
Often proposed changes to parking are criticised for being unfair to people who may rely on cars. It is great that these questions of equity are raised (including by the planning minister), but some of the common concerns are misplaced.
Firstly, developers are sensitive to market demands and will continue to provide apartments with parking for those who need it. When <a href="https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-2016/from-parking-minimums-to-parking-maximums-in-london/" target="_blank">London removed minimum parking requirements in 2004</a>, new developments still provided car parks – just at half the previous required rate.
Closer to home, the inner-city councils of <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/parking-requirements-to-be-cut-back-under-new-design-standards-proposed-for-apartments-20140923-10kw9f" target="_blank">Sydney</a> and Melbourne have already removed some minimum parking requirements – and many new apartments still provide parking spaces.
Secondly, while apartment dwellers with insufficient off-street parking are often blamed for clogging up on-street parking in residential areas, they are rarely to blame. A <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837718309104" target="_blank">recent study in Melbourne</a> found residents of detached houses use 77-84% of on-street parking. Many of them have garages, but choose to use them for storage or living space.
Apartment dwellers were less likely to use on-street parking and more likely to have unused spaces. And more parking in apartment blocks isn’t helping people access our cities, even by car.
Finally, providing more housing options without rigidly attached parking spaces will encourage people who don’t actually need to drive to <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352146517306737" target="_blank">choose to drive less or switch to other forms of transport</a>.
Removing minimum parking requirements will not mean that people who need to drive for work, medical or other reasons can’t find homes with parking spaces. Indeed, if we make it easier for those who don’t need to drive to get around in other ways, <a href="https://theconversation.com/crowded-trains-planning-focus-on-cars-misses-new-apartment-impacts-116514" target="_blank">congestion could be eased for those workers who do need a car</a>.
Pro-car planning policies are unfair to those who can’t drive
Policies that encourage dependence on cars marginalise people who can’t or don’t drive. These groups are often disadvantaged in other ways. For example, people with disabilities tend to <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1044207317702070" target="_blank">rely on public transport, not cars, to participate in society</a>.
In Australia, <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features40July+2013#missing" target="_blank">households in the most disadvantaged areas</a> are the most likely not to have a car. Older Australians are also less likely to drive. <a href="https://chartingtransport.com/2015/03/09/trends-in-drivers-license-ownership-in-australia/" target="_blank">Rates of driver licence ownership decrease</a> from around the age of 60.
Providing quality public transport and walkable streets – not an oversupply of car parking – is critical to ensure <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0013916512440705" target="_blank">children</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/young-people-want-walkable-neighbourhoods-but-safety-is-a-worry-88081" target="_blank">young</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/eight-simple-changes-to-our-neighbourhoods-can-help-us-age-well-83962" target="_blank">older people</a> and those with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2016/sep/27/disabled-people-second-class-citizens-public-transport" target="_blank">disabilities</a> can get around independently.
Minimum parking requirements prioritise cars as the default transport option. The results include <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/03/03/how-parking-requirements-hurt-the-poor/?noredirect=on&amp;utm_term=.e57f0893f065" target="_blank">increased congestion, urban sprawl and air pollution</a>.
Parking requirements also make apartments less affordable. Land construction costs per parking space average between <a href="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/hdp.au.prod.app.com-participate.files/2615/2963/7455/Transport_Strategy_Refresh_-_Background_paper_-_Car_Parking.pdf" target="_blank">A$50,000 and $80,000, as well as using valuable space at an average of 21 square metres</a>. A parking space is bigger than a bedroom – and <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/melbournes-apartment-sizes-face-more-scrutiny-20150414-1mkuj4" target="_blank">nearly half the size of a typical new Melbourne apartment!</a>.
Design cities around people, not cars
Australian planning policy has favoured cars over other forms of transport for too long. This needs to change if we want our cities to be healthy, liveable and easy to get around for everyone.
Moreland’s plan to scrap minimum parking requirements may sound extreme, but it isn’t going to take existing parking spaces away, or mean all new developments will have zero parking.
The practicalities of on-street parking policy are important, but mandating the supply of more off-street parking <a href="https://theconversation.com/empty-car-parks-everywhere-but-nowhere-to-park-how-cities-can-do-better-99031" target="_blank">isn’t even the best way to meet parking demand</a>.
If we continue to plan our urban areas as if everyone needs a car (or multiple cars) to get around, we will rapidly run out of space. And the space we have left will be unpleasant to spend time in. This means more time spent in traffic for drivers and ugly, hazardous and polluted streets for locals.
Sidestepping this difficult issue in the name of “balance” isn’t fair or practical. Improving public transport in these corridors is in the state’s power and would be a much more constructive response.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116179/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Elizabeth Taylor, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning &amp; Design, Monash University
Julianna Rozek, Research Officer, Healthy Liveable Cities Group, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University
Rebecca Clements, PhD Candidate, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, University of Melbourne
Thami Croeser, Research Officer, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/of-all-the-problems-our-cities-need-to-fix-lack-of-car-parking-isnt-one-of-them-116179" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Of all the problems our cities need to fix, lack of car parking isn’t one of them

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Globally, road crashes <a href="https://www.un.org/press/en/2013/sgsm15005.doc.htm" target="_blank">kill 1.3 million people a year</a> and injure nearly 50 million more. Autonomous vehicles (AVs) have been identified as a potential solution to this issue if they can learn to identify and avoid situations leading to crashes.
Unlike human drivers, these vehicles won’t get tired, drive drunk, look at their phone, or speed. What’s more, AVs will reduce congestion and pollution, increase access to public transport, be cheaper, improve mobility for people with disabilities, and make transport fun again. Right?
Well, <a href="https://infrastructure.gov.au/transport/automatedvehicles/files/automated-vehicles-brochure.pdf" target="_blank">that’s what the brochure says</a>.
Rightly or wrongly, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-01/autonomous-car-tech-investment-skyrockets-on-softbank-deals" target="_blank">billions of dollars</a> are being poured into autonomous vehicle research and development to pursue this autopia. However, barely any resource or thought is being given to the question of how humans will ultimately respond to the AV fleet. In a city full of autonomous cars, how might our behaviour and use of city streets change?
In one scenario, people could act on the knowledge that these vehicles will stop any time someone chooses to step in front of them, bringing traffic to a halt.
Humans (and animals) will adapt
O⁠n⁠e⁠ ⁠o⁠f⁠ ⁠h⁠u⁠m⁠a⁠n⁠s'⁠ ⁠g⁠r⁠e⁠a⁠t⁠ ⁠s⁠t⁠r⁠e⁠n⁠g⁠t⁠h⁠s⁠⁠ is our⁠ ⁠a⁠d⁠a⁠p⁠t⁠a⁠bility⁠. We quickly ⁠⁠l⁠e⁠a⁠r⁠n⁠ ⁠t⁠o⁠ ⁠m⁠a⁠n⁠i⁠p⁠u⁠l⁠a⁠t⁠e⁠ ⁠a⁠n⁠d⁠ ⁠e⁠x⁠p⁠l⁠o⁠i⁠t⁠ ⁠o⁠u⁠r⁠ ⁠e⁠n⁠v⁠i⁠r⁠o⁠n⁠m⁠e⁠n⁠t⁠.⁠ A future road environment saturated with autonomous vehicles will be no different.
⁠F⁠o⁠r ⁠e⁠x⁠a⁠m⁠p⁠l⁠e⁠, think about why you don’t walk out in front of traffic or drive through stop signs. Because other cars could injure or hurt you, right?⁠ ⁠
But autonomous vehicles promise something new. They are being designed to “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRIn4-5TmUM" target="_blank">act flawlessly</a>”.
There are two elements to this: the first is not making mistakes, and the second is compensating for the occasional errors and misjudgements that fallible humans make. Autonomous vehicles promise alignment with Asimov’s First Law of Robotics: "A robot may not injure a human."
Now imagine crossing a road or highway in a city saturated by autonomous cars where the threat of being run over disappears. You⁠ ⁠<a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24076-birds-are-aware-of-speed-limits-on-roads/" target="_blank">(⁠o⁠r⁠ ⁠a⁠n⁠y⁠ ⁠o⁠t⁠h⁠e⁠r⁠ ⁠mildly i⁠n⁠t⁠e⁠l⁠l⁠i⁠g⁠e⁠n⁠t⁠ ⁠a⁠n⁠i⁠m⁠a⁠l⁠)</a>⁠ might quickly learn that ⁠⁠oncoming traffic <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=2&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjWi__RncXhAhXoiVQKHV8DCZIQwqsBMAF6BAgHEAc&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DpjQt2lEZIXg&amp;usg=AOvVaw2Sfosz-BND_3X573Ne7IEM" target="_blank">poses no threat at all</a>. Replicated thousands of times across a dense inner city, this could produce gridlock among safety-conscious autonomous vehicles, but virtual freedom of movement for humans – maybe even heralding a return to pedestrian rights of yesteryear.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268560/original/file-20190410-2924-pg0xju.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268560/original/file-20190410-2924-pg0xju.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Could an autonomous vehicle future return the streets to humans, as seen here in early 20th-century Melbourne outside Flinders Street Station? University of Melbourne Architecture, Building &amp; Planning Glass Slides Collection
A simple example of how this might happen comes from game theory. Take two scenarios at an intersection where pedestrians and vehicles negotiate priority to cross first. Each receives known “pay-offs” for behaviour in the context of the other’s action. The higher the comparative pay-off for either party, the more likely the action.
In the left-hand scenario below, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium" target="_blank">Nash equilibrium</a> (the optimum combined action of both parties) exists in the lower left quadrant where the pedestrian has a small incentive to “stay” to avoid being injured by the manually driven car, and the driver has a strong incentive to “go”.
However, in the scenario on the right, the autonomous vehicles has a desire to act flawlessly and pose no threat to the pedestrian at all. While this might be great for safety, the pedestrian can now adopt a strategy of “go” at all times, forcing the AV to stay put.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268555/original/file-20190410-2931-gru7no.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268555/original/file-20190410-2931-gru7no.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
A simple ‘normal game’ comparison of pedestrians versus manually operated and autonomous cars negotiating intersections. Author provided
Can this potential problem be overcome?
One solution might be to ⁠p⁠r⁠o⁠g⁠r⁠a⁠m⁠ ⁠⁠a⁠l⁠g⁠o⁠r⁠i⁠t⁠h⁠m⁠s⁠ into vehicles ⁠t⁠h⁠a⁠t⁠ make them ⁠o⁠c⁠c⁠a⁠s⁠i⁠o⁠n⁠a⁠l⁠l⁠y⁠,⁠ ⁠p⁠u⁠r⁠p⁠o⁠s⁠e⁠f⁠u⁠l⁠l⁠y⁠,⁠ ⁠r⁠u⁠n into⁠ ⁠people, animals or other <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/22/18511527/elon-musk-tesla-aggressive-autopilot-mode-fender-bender" target="_blank">vehicles</a>⁠⁠. Although this would maintain a level of fear and caution in the population, l⁠e⁠g⁠a⁠l⁠l⁠y⁠ ⁠a⁠n⁠d⁠ ⁠m⁠o⁠r⁠a⁠l⁠l⁠y⁠⁠ ⁠it is hard to see how this would be ⁠a⁠c⁠c⁠e⁠p⁠t⁠a⁠b⁠l⁠e⁠.
Another option could be infrastructure separating autonomous vehicles from vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists. But the cost and reduction in amenity this would create would be enormous. Further, this type of solution <a href="https://www.towardszero.vic.gov.au/news/articles/flexible-barriers-how-they-work-and-the-cheese-cutter-myth" target="_blank">could be applied now</a>, negating much of the need for AV software and technology development in the first place.
A final, duplicitous idea is to simply turn off the safety systems that cause so-called “erratic vehicle behaviour” (i.e., slowing down to avoid hitting people). This is reported to have occurred when a <a href="https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HWY18MH010-prelim.pdf" target="_blank">self-driving Uber struck and killed a pedestrian in Arizona last year</a>. However, if this is the solution, you then have to ask, “What is the transport problem autonomous vehicles are actually trying to solve?”
It won’t happen overnight
In the scenarios above most of the fleet are autonomous vehicles, and humans adapt to their consistently safe behaviour. However, the <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/future-of-transportation-self-driving-cars-reality-check/" target="_blank">complete transition</a> to autonomous vehicles <a href="http://www.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/AVadvice" target="_blank">will not occur overnight</a> and might create new crash situations that are, so far, poorly understood.
For example, we are developing simulations of interactions between vulnerable road users and a mixed fleet of autonomous vehicles and human-driven cars. These models show how inconsistencies between the behaviour of manual and autonomous vehicle types could even lead to <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/Agent_Jase/status/1116179718967939072" target="_blank">more crashes during the transition</a>.
The future for AVs under threat
As AV technology rolls on, and the marketing hype surrounding them continues to draw attention <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/12/ubers-self-driving-car-unit-was-burning-20-million-a-month/">and burn up investment dollars</a>, it should be remembered that humans and animals are still going to behave how we always have by continually adapting and exploiting weaknesses in our environment.
Part of the promise of autonomous vehicles is their proposed safety through deference to human life. But, if the point of transport systems is to enable efficient movement of people and goods for the benefit of society, this strength of AVs might prove to be their ultimate weakness as a viable mass transport mode.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114504/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Jason Thompson, Senior Research Fellow, Transport, Health and Urban Design (THUD) Research Hub, University of Melbourne
Gemma Read, Senior Research Fellow in Human Factors &amp; Sociotechnical Systems, University of the Sunshine Coast
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/nothing-to-fear-how-humans-and-other-intelligent-animals-might-ruin-the-autonomous-vehicle-utopia-114504" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

How humans (and other intelligent animals) might ruin the autonomous vehicle utopia

<html><body>
One of the problems with cars is the pollution they cause.
This not only impacts the world through greenhouse gas emissions but also has an impact on the health of residents living in areas with poor air quality, according to the latest Secret Agent report.
One of the main obvious benefits of restricted car use in our cities is less congestion.
Taking cars and street parking away means that there is more room for public amenity.
This includes wider footpaths as well as more room for plants and green space. This can also lead to beneficial health effects.
If more people are out and about walking and spending time in green spaces, rather than in their car, home or office, there are more opportunities for social interaction.
This is important because social isolation is a risk factor for physical and mental illness.
Another benefit noted by the report was that: "With less cars in the area it can be expected that there will be fewer fatalities caused by traffic accidents."
In terms of property value, more green space, safer streets and less traffic are also positive features.
Improved public realm and amenity can increase the desirability of a particular area.
This combined with population growth, will increase demand and property prices will likely go up, according to the report.
</body></html>

Why going car free can boost property prices: The Secret Agent Report

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Car sharing arrived on the Australian scene in the early 2000s. These are commercial services that give people access to vehicles they can rent by the hour.
Services in Australia currently include GoGet and Car Next Door. While GoGet has a fleet of vehicles available for rent, Car Next Door supports private vehicle owners renting out their cars to others in the community (kind of like Airbnb).
Car sharing is now an established transport option in most major Australian cities, but it’s faced its fair share of teething problems. Some of these are unique to Australia, with its powerful system of private car dependency. We’re now on track to overcome many of these issues, but more work is required to really make Australian car sharing a success.
Why is car sharing important?
Car sharing is key component of any transition away from a dependence on private cars. Most of us are now aware that using private cars is one of the most carbon intensive and least healthy ways to get around.
To challenge the place of the private car, we need to supply a network of options. The hope is that owning a car will one day become unnecessary in an integrated system of public and active transport options, where shared cars would play a role in more complex or load-carrying trips.
Car sharing is particularly important in a world on the cusp of the arrival of autonomous vehicles (AVs). AVs could herald either “carmageddons” of congestion, where private autonomous vehicles roam the city at the whim of their owners, or a more palatable system, where on-demand AV services seamlessly match trips to riders. Which version of the future we get depends on whether AVs are shared or privately owned.
Here are some key factors that will shape future success of car sharing in Australia.
1. Car sharing is an inner city thing
Heading the list of barriers to increased uptake of car sharing is that it’s currently a service that is generally contained within the inner urban core of our cities.
Commercial options – where companies maintain their own fleet of vehicles – rely on a critical mass of people, the allocation of prized on-street car parking, and a viable public transport system to satisfy the day-to-day mobility needs of their members. These things generally don’t exist outside of the inner city, so neither does commercial car sharing.
Peer-to-peer (P2P) options – where the carsharing company facilitates the sharing process between individuals – offer some hope of a breakthrough in this space. P2P car sharing is more likely to succeed in lower density areas because it does not need the critical mass of users, nor the gift of on-street car parking.
While the slow creep of P2P services into the suburbs is a process bound by the notorious sluggishness of cultural adjustment, we are witnessing some increased suburbanisation of car sharing as a result of P2P services.
2. Australians don’t share
The need for cultural adjustment raises a second key barrier to car sharing in Australia. Anyone living through the recent bike sharing fiasco in Sydney or Melbourne, where bikes were dumped in parks and rivers, will attest to the fact that (some) Australians are not great at respecting property that is shared. In fact, there are indices of national culture that could have easily predicted the vandalism associated with this catastrophe.
And when it comes to our cars, we are a nation particularly attached to the independence, autonomy and privacy of our own vehicle. Sharing – whether it be lending your own car to a stranger, or making use of a car regularly driven by others – challenges these notions.
But parts of our cities are slowly but surely adapting to living in closer proximity to one another – albeit by necessity, not by choice. And as a nation, we are becoming less attached to owning the spaces and objects we depend upon.
This shift away from personal space and private ownership can primarily be seen in changes to residential densities and tenure-types. But it’s also seen in the way we work, play and eat. Think of the rise of hot-desking, the shift from private backyards to public parks, and the move from the family table to the café.
3. It’s all too hard
At first, car sharing wasn’t easy. Car sharing parking spaces were few and far between, insurance arrangements were somewhat obtuse, and the platform for sharing enforced rigid time frames and payment structures.
The pioneers of car sharing in Australia – both the business entrepreneurs and the policy makers – have had to navigate some pretty tricky regulatory, legislative and technological territory.
Commercial operations have negotiated with local government for parking space, and P2P ventures have had to work through complex registration and insurance regulations that vary from state to state. Both approaches have had to design and implement technology that allows cars to be booked and accessed seamlessly.
Fortunately, for those doing the sharing, a lot of these barriers have now been broken down. Most metropolitan local councils now maintain a policy for the allocation of car sharing parking spaces. Insurance cover for P2P sharing is now a standard option.
The future of car sharing
There are changes on the horizon all designed to make the concept of sharing even easier. One of the most interesting is the imminent arrival of “share ready” cars on the Australian market.
Designed primarily for the P2P market, these are cars that come with an app, which connects owners’ vehicles to their phones, enabling them to list their car for rent on car sharing websites. The sharer will then be able to access and drive the vehicle using their smart phone, entirely negating the need for traditional keys.
Involvement of the auto-industry is always an interesting development in car sharing. It has been proven empirically that people who use car sharing services drive less and own less cars. This implies less business for car manufacturers. Does this mean the car industry is accepting fissures in the dominance of private cars and protecting whatever share of the transport market it can? Or is it another way of keeping cars king in our cities?
Only time will tell. For the time being, car sharing’s survival is one positive sign that a sustainable transport future is possible.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104389/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Jennifer Kent, Research Fellow, University of Sydney
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-car-sharing-had-a-slow-start-in-australia-and-how-thats-changing-104389" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Why car sharing had a slow start in Australia - and how that’s changing: Jennifer Kent

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
EXPERT OBSERVATION
Currently someone on the average wage needs to work for 23.2 weeks to afford a Ford Falcon – the best (lowest) result on record. Four years ago the same worker would have needed to work almost three weeks longer to afford the same purchase.
The weekly ANZ/Roy Morgan consumer confidence rating fell for the first time in seven weeks, dropping 3.2 per cent to 117.7. Confidence is still up by 4.3 per cent over the year and above the average of 113.8 since 2014.
Consumer confidence figures have implications for retailers, and other consumer-focussed businesses. Car affordability data is helpful in analysing spending trends.
What does it all mean?
Seven was a bridge too far. Consumer confidence rose for six straight weeks, but a weaker sharemarket, global uncertainties (such as US-North Korea talks) and a spike in petrol prices have serve to dull consumer optimism.
Too often, investors and analysts focus on the slower growth of wages rather than comparing wages with the prices of key goods and services. One reason that Aussie consumers are devoting extra dollars to buying homes is because the affordability of a raft of other items has improved – such as cars, whitegoods, phones, TVs, food and clothing. It’s also important to note that the quality or features of goods like cars and electrical goods is vastly better than similar purchases made five or 10+ years ago.
And it’s not just the ‘run of the mill’ goods. Over the past 20 years the number of weeks a person on the average wage has had to work to buy a luxury car like the BMW 318i has halved.
Click here <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2018/5/30/affordable.jpg" target="_blank">to enlarge.</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2018/5/30/affordable.jpg" alt="">
What do the figures show?
The National Roads and Motorists Association (NRMA) in NSW has published data on car prices in its Open Road magazine for over 25 years. The data is sourced from the Glass’s Guide. When measured against wages we are able to derive measures of car affordability.
Currently someone on the average wage needs to work for 23.2 weeks to afford a Ford Falcon – the best (lowest) result on record. Four years ago the same worker would have needed to work almost three weeks longer to afford the purchase.
It’s not just Ford Falcons; consistent price data exists for the Toyota Corolla, Holden Commodore and the BMW 318i. In fact affordability of a BMW 318i has improved over the past four years from 41.5 weeks of wages (for someone on the average wage) to 36.5 weeks currently.
Since 1999 the average wage has more than doubled, up 111 per cent. Over the same period, a BMW 318i (and similar models and variants) have increased in price by just 2 per cent.
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Affordability more generally
Over the past five years the average wage has lifted by 12.4 per cent – an increase of $176 a week or $9,152 a year. Interestingly over the same time, clothing has become cheaper – down by 5.6 per cent.
Amongst other goods to have become cheaper are cars (down 1.2 per cent), household appliances (down 6.1 per cent), communication equipment (down 33.1 per cent), toys &amp; games (down 5.9 per cent).
Overall the cost of consumer goods lifted by 8.2 per cent, meaning consumers are in front.
Less affordable over the past five years has been education (cost up 25 per cent), tobacco (up 74.8 per cent), electricity &amp; gas (up 23.4 per cent) and transport services (up 16.6 per cent).
Click here <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2018/5/30/cars%20v%20houses.jpg" target="_blank">to enlarge.</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2018/5/30/cars%20v%20houses.jpg" alt="">
Consumer Sentiment
The weekly ANZ/Roy Morgan consumer confidence rating fell for the first time in seven weeks, dropping 3.2 per cent to 117.7. Confidence is still up by 4.3 per cent over the year and above the average of 113.8 since 2014.
All of the five components of the index fell in the latest week:
The estimate of family finances compared with a year ago was down from +10.1 to +7.1;
The estimate of family finances over the next year was down from +27.8 to +22.5;
Economic conditions over the next 12 months was down from +13.2 to +10.5;
Economic conditions over the next 5 years was down from +15.3 to +12.4;
The measure of whether it was a good time to buy a major household item was down from +41.7 to +36.2.  The measure of inflation expectations 2 years ahead rose from 4.2 per cent to 4.7 per cent.
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 3">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
What is the importance of the economic data?
The ANZ/Roy Morgan weekly survey of consumer confidence closely tracks the monthly Westpac/Melbourne Institute consumer sentiment index but the former measure is a timelier assessment of consumer attitudes and is now closely tracked by the Reserve Bank.
CommSec maintains a database of car prices in order to measure affordability over time. If cars are more affordable, more vehicles are likely to be purchased. And more affordable cars free up more spending power to purchase other goods and services.\
What are the implications for interest rates and investors?
Saudi Arabia and Russia are taking about increasing crude output. As a result, crude prices are easing and this could lead to lower prices for products like petrol and jet fuel. Consumer-focussed stocks and transport companies like airlines have potential to benefit if fuel prices fall.
The prices of some imported vehicles have lifted in recent months in response to a lower Aussie dollar. So the affordability of some makes has weakened modestly. But in a longer-term framework cars remain super-affordable. Auto-dependent companies continue to face favourable operating conditions.
Consumers are saving by buying clothes, cars, household goods and phones. But ‘nasties’ like electricity bills, education fees, train &amp; bus fares and insurance premiums have been getting dearer. And because many of these are ‘everyday’ items, they tend to influence sentiment to a greater extent than less frequent purchases.
Overall the average Aussie remains in front, but they may not feel it to the extent that they should.
Craig James is the chief economist at <a href="https://www.comsec.com.au/default.aspx" target="_blank">CommSec</a>. 
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

Car affordability at record lows: CommSec

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Hobart is a city with growing pains. As Australia’s second-oldest city, it might be likened to an octogenarian suddenly experiencing a teenage “growth spurt”. Growth is occurring both in visitor numbers and new residents.
The March 3 state election has drawn attention to several growth-related issues, including housing affordability, rental vacancies and traffic congestion. These issues are not new for many Australian cities, or indeed for cities globally. But in Hobart they are almost as surprising as the city’s midwinter 2017 nude swim.
A highly car-dependent city
While Hobart is perceived as a walkable city, it is among Australia’s most car-dependent. A 2010 survey of Hobart’s households showed that 89% of people’s travel was as a car driver or passenger.
For some Hobart residents, being able to drive anywhere is seen as a right. This attitude was neatly summed up in a Metro Tasmania survey where one respondent said: "Tasmanians would drive to the toilet if they could."
But the increase in Hobart’s traffic over the past few years is no joke. The city’s morning and afternoon peak hours increasingly dominate the local news. It’s now anyone’s guess how long the once eight-minute cross-town trip might take.
Residents are concerned not just about inconvenience or lost productivity. Hobart’s outlying low-density suburbs are poorly serviced by public transport. They are predominantly home to residents who are highly dependent upon their cars for work, trips for healthcare, social activities and recreation. For residents living in some of the most comparatively disadvantaged suburbs in the nation, this situation is highly inequitable.
Poor land use planning partly to blame
While Hobart’s growth can’t compare with Melbourne or Sydney, the city has a long history of concerns about traffic. This congestion is partly attributable to its urban form and partly to poor planning.
The central business district, where most jobs are located, occupies a narrow area of land wedged between steep terrain and the Derwent River. Only a few main roads carry daily commuter traffic. If one becomes blocked by, for example, a crash, this can cause traffic jams that extend to the outlying suburbs.
Second, the city sprawls outwards in corridors along the Derwent River and towards the international airport. Post-war suburban development is highly car-dependent; the city’s last passenger rail line was closed in 1978.
Transport has become a hot-button issue for ordinary residents and politicians alike in this state election campaign. But planning responses thus far have been piecemeal and superficial, such as moving a few car parks and synchronising traffic lights.
Some election promises are “throwbacks” to the road-building ideology of the 1950s. More lanes ultimately lead to more congestion. International experiences from cities like Los Angeles show that adding more lanes to roads only creates congestion.
Other proposals accord with modern city planning and represent quite a radical step up in transport planning for Hobart.
Key steps to fix the transport system
Solutions to fix Hobart’s transport problems are necessarily medium to long term. To succeed, these should follow several transport planning principles:
<ul>
<li>
Prioritise the movement of people. This means removing private car parking in favour of pedestrian malls and reusing some road lanes as dedicated bus lanes. Reducing the width of some road lanes can also accommodate more pedestrians and cyclists.
</li>
<li>
Integrate transport and land use planning. This means creating new suburban and infill housing near existing public transit services. Planning schemes should allow medium density and mixed use development in appropriate places, to encourage walking and transit use. It should be possible to use public transport to make daily trips for education, shopping, entertainment, healthcare and the like.
</li>
<li>
Price road space appropriately. This might occur by adopting Victoria’s SmartRoads system. SmartRoads manages competing interests for limited road space by deciding which modes have priority on which roads. It recognises the increasing importance of public transport, walking and cycling. Congestion pricing in London, Stockholm and Singapore follows this principle.
</li>
<li>
Create a multi–mode public transport system. Light rail, buses and ferries should all play a role in moving people around Hobart. The ticketing system should be integrated and allow free transfers between modes.
</li>
<li>
Reduce the demand. Some employment functions could be moved out of the CBD to suburban sites. And road users might be able to stagger use, by starting work at different times, choosing different routes and car-pooling.
</li>
</ul>
To fix Hobart’s traffic congestion woes these proven principles need to be followed. Reasons for doing this include reducing carbon emissions, health imperatives and economic efficiency.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92258/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">With five major councils in the Greater Hobart area and a Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority that has no funding or staff, the state government needs to step in and co-ordinate a range of actions. There is no better time to start than with a freshly elected government on March 4.
Emma Pharo, Senior Lecturer, Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania
Jason Byrne, Professor of Human Geography and Planning, University of Tasmania
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/growth-pains-and-gridlock-come-to-hobart-and-building-more-roads-is-not-the-best-way-out-92258">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Growth pains and gridlock come to Hobart, and building more roads is not the best way out

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Emerging transport disruptions could lead to a series of nightmare scenarios and poorer transport systems unless we have sensible and informed public policy to avoid this. Of course, some foresee a utopian scene: self-driving electric vehicles zipping around our cities serving all our transport needs without road accidents or exhaust fumes. But the shift to this transport utopia might not be as straightforward as some think.
In a newly published paper, we explore some potential problems linked to vehicle electrification, autonomous vehicles, the sharing economy and the increasing density of cities. We examined what could happen if these four trends are not all properly managed together.
Much has been written about the potential benefits of these disruptions:
<ul>
<li>
electric vehicles powered by renewable energy could cut costs and fossil fuel emissions, and eliminate the significant impacts of pollution on public health and the environment
</li>
<li>
shared vehicles could reduce transport costs and traffic
</li>
<li>
autonomous vehicles could eliminate traffic accidents, reduce congestion and increase mobility for everyone
</li>
<li>
increasing urban density could bring significant economic benefits through growth and efficiency gains when people and businesses are closer together.
</li>
</ul>
However, the interplay between these trends could also result in nightmare scenarios. We developed a Future Mobility Disruption Framework to investigate what could happen if even one of these trends is not actively managed.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/204545/original/file-20180202-162063-2feaqu.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
The interactions of transport disruptions need to be anticipated and managed together. Kane &amp; Whitehead 2018, Australian Planner, Author provided
Four nightmare scenarios
Our research identified four potential nightmare scenarios.
Nightmare 1: vehicle electrification + autonomous vehicles + increasing urban density
If policy fails to support and manage a shift away from private vehicle ownership towards car-sharing, several negative impacts are likely. In this scenario, electric cars will be cheaper to run and still privately owned. This could encourage more people to drive and create more traffic.
The convenience of self-driving cars with low operating costs might also encourage a shift away from traditional public transport and could even cause its collapse.
Nightmare 2: autonomous vehicles + increasing urban density + shift towards sharing economy
If people shift from private car ownership towards shared, autonomous vehicles, significant transport cost savings could be possible. By replacing public transport systems, shared vehicle services could arguably provide cheap transport for all.
While these benefits are obvious, without vehicle electrification, the use of fossil fuels would significantly increase emissions. Though a reduction in emissions is plausible with a shift away from private vehicle ownership, the low cost and convenience of shared vehicles could lead to higher demand and more trips, thus increasing emissions. This pollution would increase rates of premature deaths and diseases in our cities, and worsen the impacts of climate change.
Nightmare 3: increasing urban density + shift towards sharing economy + vehicle electrification
We would again see a shift away from private vehicle ownership towards shared, electric vehicles. This would reduce transport and pollution-related health costs However, in this scenario, the vehicles would not be autonomous.
The shared vehicle fleet would require human drivers. This would result in higher costs, less efficiency and more accidents. Ultimately, this would be a barrier to the long-term sustainability and widespread use of shared vehicles.
Nightmare 4: shift towards sharing economy + vehicle electrification + autonomous vehicles
So what would happen in the face of three of the transport disruptions occurring without increasing urban density? Electric and autonomous vehicles would significantly reduce transport costs. Combined with the availability of shared services, this would lead to a substantial shift away from private vehicle ownership towards shared, electric, autonomous vehicles (SEAVs).
These vehicles would be efficient, safe and convenient, with minimal environmental impacts. At first this would seem like the ideal scenario to aim for. However, it ignores the potential impacts on urban form and density.
Without policies supporting urban density and public transport, a shift towards SEAVs would probably encourage sprawling, car-dominated cities as people would have fewer reasons to live close to work. SEAVs would be cheap and convenient. They could pick people up from their front door and drop them directly at their destination. People would likely not be as concerned with road congestion as they could carry out other activities during the trip – even working during the drive.
If people feel less restricted in where they choose to live, they might opt for larger houses and lots, further away from cities. This would not only place additional demands on infrastructure but also have a significant impact on the natural environments surrounding our cities.
This form of lower-density living would discourage active transport options, like walking and cycling, which would have negative health impacts. Urban sprawl could also have negative economic impacts as people and businesses spread out and lose the benefits of being close together.
Managing disruptions as a whole
Each of these four trends could independently yield many benefits. However, examination of these nightmare scenarios reveals that, without holistic planning and policy support for all four disruptions, negative unintended consequences are likely. Planners and policymakers must consider how these disruptions will interact.
As detailed in our paper, a range of possible policy interventions is available for managing the risks associated with these trends. These include reform of road taxation, supportive regulation and integrated planning.
Only a holistic approach to managing these disruptions will enable us to arrive at a future transport utopia.
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90920/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">You can read more about these transport disruptions in a forthcoming book, Three Revolutions.
Jake Whitehead, Research Fellow, The University of Queensland 
Michael Kane, Director, Innovation and Economic Strategies, Economic Development Queensland; Research Associate, Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute, Curtin University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/utopia-or-nightmare-the-answer-lies-in-how-we-embrace-self-driving-electric-and-shared-vehicles-90920">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Cars

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Cars

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News