|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 13, 2013 16:58:11 GMT -8
true it isn't surrounded by an ocean of parking like Fox Hills Mall. But there aren't any entrances on Pico. The entrances are on Westwood or Overland, or on the parking lot side.
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jun 13, 2013 18:16:03 GMT -8
The auto will be what resolves congestion, Rail is just a nice stop gap on the path to saturation of self-driving cars. Once we hit a tipping point with 30-40% self driving cars rail will become increasingly irrelevant as the slow travel caused by congestion will largely be eliminated by the automation of the perfect computer synchronization between computer controlled autos. Well, well, well, a fellow kool aid drinker I see  . Nice to see someone also looking beyond the next several years. But here is the thing, long term. I agree that when you get to some % of self driving vehicles, traffic will start flowing much more smoothly. If I take your 30-40% estimate at face value, it will still be quite a long time. If they arrive in 5 years (optimistic), it would probably take another 10 years after that for any kind of serious market penetration. Look at hybrids, they came along in 2000, and are still less than <10% of new vehicle sales. The thing that could turn the acceptance in hyper mode would be if for safety reasons the government mandated it in some manner. If automated cars reduce traffic accidents/fatalities by 90%, then they would be crazy not to mandate it. Even then, you are looking at another say 6 years for half the fleet to turn over. So... 5 years till first automated vehicle legally hits the road with passengers, another 3 years for the government to decide it needs to be mandatory, and then another 6 for getting 30-40% of the fleet replaced, thats 14 years minimum. But beyond that, or even during that period, fossil fuels could be the limiting factor. A lot can happen in the Middle East in 14 years, and almost all of the outcomes don't bode well for oil prices, especially when oil becomes more scarce. I think the cost of driving will get people out of their cars long before automated vehicles get them from Santa Monica to DTLA in 30 minutes during rush hour. So building the transit network out like we are is an insurance policy to allow alternate ways to get around. If oil goes crazy, and you want to have those cars be electric powered, then you are looking at another set of problems. The vehicle fleet uses 2x the amount of energy that the entire power grid supplies. Everyone will just not be able to switch to electric cars en masse. If we lose the oil we have to replace it with something. Even natural gas causes environmental problems, and there are another set of problems associated with endless burning up of fossil fuels. It's a big problem, but obviously worth thinking about, especially given the amounts of money involved in all aspects of this. RT |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 14, 2013 10:25:27 GMT -8
Westside Pavilion would be so much better if there are entrance at Westwood/Pico. The Nordstroms location is pretty terrible, like a giant middle finger to the pedestrians. Imagine if Nordstroms put their Cafe at that corner and open it to the outside... that would make waiting for bus at that corner a much better experience.
I had high hopes that the mall owner would change the store front when they kicked out Barns & Noble but they again failed to take advantage of the ample street facing store fronts. Imagine the first floor of that furniture store (which took over the Barns & Noble) is divided into 4 or 5 restaurants with Nordstroms Cafe on the other side.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 28, 2013 14:05:35 GMT -8
The long story short, you can't have transit-oriented development in Los Angeles near where there are single-family homes. Industrially zoned areas far enough from single-family neighborhoods seem to be the only option. Casden agrees to downsize West L.A. development at the Sepulveda Station (link to full article)Developer Casden West L.A. drops plans for a grocery store and Target and reduces number of homes after critics complain about expected new traffic. The reworked project, planned next to the Expo Line light-rail Sepulveda Station, will have just 15,000 square feet of commercial space, instead of the previously proposed 160,000, said company spokesman Brian Lewis. |
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 28, 2013 14:36:47 GMT -8
The long story short, you can't have transit-oriented development in Los Angeles near where there are single-family homes. Industrially zoned areas far enough from single-family neighborhoods seem to be the only option. Casden agrees to downsize West L.A. development at the Sepulveda Station (link to full article)Developer Casden West L.A. drops plans for a grocery store and Target and reduces number of homes after critics complain about expected new traffic. The reworked project, planned next to the Expo Line light-rail Sepulveda Station, will have just 15,000 square feet of commercial space, instead of the previously proposed 160,000, said company spokesman Brian Lewis. Anyone know what happened at the L.A. City Council today? |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 28, 2013 16:43:25 GMT -8
The long story short, you can't have transit-oriented development in Los Angeles near where there are single-family homes. Industrially zoned areas far enough from single-family neighborhoods seem to be the only option. Casden agrees to downsize West L.A. development at the Sepulveda Station (link to full article)Developer Casden West L.A. drops plans for a grocery store and Target and reduces number of homes after critics complain about expected new traffic. The reworked project, planned next to the Expo Line light-rail Sepulveda Station, will have just 15,000 square feet of commercial space, instead of the previously proposed 160,000, said company spokesman Brian Lewis. Anyone know what happened at the L.A. City Council today? I suspect that they over plan developments, and then chop them down in size, etc. to stop lawsuits... Just saying. I see it as a pattern of survival. |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 28, 2013 19:43:11 GMT -8
The long story short, you can't have transit-oriented development in Los Angeles near where there are single-family homes. Industrially zoned areas far enough from single-family neighborhoods seem to be the only option. Casden agrees to downsize West L.A. development at the Sepulveda Station (link to full article)Developer Casden West L.A. drops plans for a grocery store and Target and reduces number of homes after critics complain about expected new traffic. The reworked project, planned next to the Expo Line light-rail Sepulveda Station, will have just 15,000 square feet of commercial space, instead of the previously proposed 160,000, said company spokesman Brian Lewis. Anyone know what happened at the L.A. City Council today? I am guessing there was no vote as Mr. Casden caved in. He doesn't care one way or the other since he's already a billionaire. It would be nice to have a grocery store at the complex so that thousands of people wouldn't have to drive to the grocery store. Perhaps Target would be excessive but then show me a Target store that's a stone's throw from a rail station, except for the one at Rodeo / La Cienega, which is a block or two from the Expo La Cienega Station. Instead of reducing the number of apartments, it would be better to reduce the number of residential parking spaces. That way you don't bring new traffic, yet make the city more livable. To me it looks like little can be changed in this city. They are doing a whole EIR for Expo Line transit neighborhood planning but will it actually lead to anything useful? |
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Jun 28, 2013 20:02:31 GMT -8
The long story short, you can't have transit-oriented development in Los Angeles near where there are single-family homes. Industrially zoned areas far enough from single-family neighborhoods seem to be the only option. Casden agrees to downsize West L.A. development at the Sepulveda Station (link to full article)Developer Casden West L.A. drops plans for a grocery store and Target and reduces number of homes after critics complain about expected new traffic. The reworked project, planned next to the Expo Line light-rail Sepulveda Station, will have just 15,000 square feet of commercial space, instead of the previously proposed 160,000, said company spokesman Brian Lewis. Anyone know what happened at the L.A. City Council today? |
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 28, 2013 21:31:43 GMT -8
Thanks for the citation. "Gone are plans to develop an adjacent Metro-owned property" -- no, there never were plans to develop the Metro property, it is occupied by the Expo Line! It was only a gimmick to increase the parcel size so the floor area ratio (FAR) would allow taller, denser development on Casden's property. "it is infeasible to build such a project on just 4 acres of land" -- no, they had always maxed out their allowed FAR, but had to reduce size after using Metro's right-of-way became too controversial. |
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jun 29, 2013 2:29:42 GMT -8
Increasing traffic was my major concern. It sounds as if the council approved a project that will fit well within the available space. 15,000 square feet of retail space is nothing to sneeze at. Sounds as if the retail space can house businesses that serve the local community and transit-riders without drawing much additional vehicular traffic.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 30, 2013 13:39:42 GMT -8
it's a shame, as denser development is so much greener than low density development. This is still better than nothing, but it stinks for the nearby residents to be robbed of so much dense development.
|
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 30, 2013 21:48:29 GMT -8
it's a shame, as denser development is so much greener than low density development. This is still better than nothing, but it stinks for the nearby residents to be robbed of so much dense development. The final project's 595 units on 4 acres is hardly "low density"! And that density belongs in an urban center where many trips are walking distance, not by itself, although next to a light rail line but where the majority of residents' trips will be by car. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jul 1, 2013 16:03:36 GMT -8
The final project's 595 units on 4 acres is hardly "low density"! And that density belongs in an urban center where many trips are walking distance, not by itself, although next to a light rail line but where the majority of residents' trips will be by car. Just for argument: what if this development was the first of several in the area? What if the retail meant that people in residential areas south and east of the station could now walk to do their shopping. What if the areas north/north-west of the station got built up into a dense walkable neighborhood? If we're going to let areas like this develop in LA, they have to start somewhere, and a major station on a busy light rail line sounds like a good place to start. Here's an overview map of the area for reference. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 1, 2013 16:52:46 GMT -8
The final project's 595 units on 4 acres is hardly "low density"! And that density belongs in an urban center where many trips are walking distance, not by itself, although next to a light rail line but where the majority of residents' trips will be by car. Just for argument: what if this development was the first of several in the area? What if the retail meant that people in residential areas south and east of the station could now walk to do their shopping. What if the areas north/north-west of the station got built up into a dense walkable neighborhood? If we're going to let areas like this develop in LA, they have to start somewhere, and a major station on a busy light rail line sounds like a good place to start. Here's an overview map of the area for reference. The problem with this and with the areas around Expo is that they are really the opposite now. These are mostly areas with single family homes, wide streets, high volume traffic, some industrial zoning near the stations and so forth. I see what you are saying, but it is very tough to create a mini downtown on top of these areas. The single family homes, the industrial users and so forth will put up a huge opposition. This is part of the reason, why I think the Purple Line is such an important project as it really hits much more walkable and dense areas that are already where the "city" is. You'd really have to rezone the areas around Expo and it is doubtful that is politically possible given the collateral damage that many would see. I don't have such a problem with that as Expo can only carry so many people. I suspect that once Crenshaw is built, the full Expo line will have at least 70k riders. Its capacity is probably only 100k or so. There isn't going to be a lot of room to build huge new developments as that just isn't a lot of slack. |
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Jul 1, 2013 19:13:38 GMT -8
Imposing density is a recipe for discontent. If it's to take root it will grow organically. Build the stations, build the rail and above all remember and respect that these systems do go through people's neighborhoods and places of business. There are good reasons (and bad) why the single family residences wish to preserve their way of life. Disproportionate development in their area will be opposed and I kind of think it should be. That said, just watch. Zoning will change along the tracks and multiple family residences will thrive. Same for the industrial zone west of Sepulveda. There are already loft spaces mixed within the self-storage buildings and auto body shops. And there will be more over time. Moderate expansion of density will do the city and the Expo line good. They're made for one another.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jul 2, 2013 7:49:05 GMT -8
Imposing density is a recipe for discontent. If it's to take root it will grow organically. Build the stations, build the rail and above all remember and respect that these systems do go through people's neighborhoods and places of business. There are good reasons (and bad) why the single family residences wish to preserve their way of life. Disproportionate development in their area will be opposed and I kind of think it should be. That said, just watch. Zoning will change along the tracks and multiple family residences will thrive. Same for the industrial zone west of Sepulveda. There are already loft spaces mixed within the self-storage buildings and auto body shops. And there will be more over time. Moderate expansion of density will do the city and the Expo line good. They're made for one another. From what I hear, people in greater Vancouver are far from being discontent. We can also look at Arlington, Virginia if you don't think that Canada should be counted as an example of density working well in proximity to single family houses. |
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Jul 2, 2013 8:30:08 GMT -8
Matthew, what have you heard? How did Vancouver and Arlington impose density on it's citizens in a manner which was embraced without discontent?
|
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jul 2, 2013 8:36:22 GMT -8
The Cathay Circle area of the Westside is an example of low-density "prospering" right next to high density (Wilshire Bl.), despite high traffic volume on Olympic, La Cienega, Fairfax, and the high rise office buildings of Wilshire Bl. Another example is Holmby Hills just north of Wilshire at Beverly Glen. There doesn't always have to be a transition of lower density housing giving way to higher density housing or mixed use.
But Pico and Sepulveda / Exposition feels different ...it just doesn't "feel" walkable right now (and I still do it sometimes). ...Too much traffic, too much congestion on streets that feel too narrow for the load; the cement "factory," meter maid and child support headquarters and post office that feels like it's for cars only. (Have I made it sound sufficiently bad--because that's how I experience it?) ...This area as it's presently constituted just isn't desirable to my feet and eyes ...and life experience.
I'm hoping that new housing that adds few new parking spaces and new businesses that do the same will improve the aesthetic quality of this area ...but this will happen only if it "fits" with the more positive aspects of this area that are represented by the businesses along Pico to the east and the low-density housing to the east of Sepulveda.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 2, 2013 8:48:27 GMT -8
But Pico and Sepulveda / Exposition feels different ...it just doesn't "feel" walkable right now (and I still do it sometimes). ...Too much traffic, too much congestion on streets that feel to narrow for the load; the cement "factory," meter maid and child support headquarters and post office that feels like it's for cars only. (Have I made it sound sufficiently bad--because that's how I experience it?) ...This area as it's presently constituted just isn't desirable to my feet and eyes ...and life experience. I'm hoping that new housing that adds few new parking spaces and new businesses that do the same ...integrated with the more positive aspects of this area represented by the businesses along Pico to the east and low-density housing to the east of Sepulveda will improve the aesthetic quality of this area. I would agree, Pico Sepulveda is not very walkable, and I walked the area a LOT when I lived at National/Sepulveda and had a gym at the Westside YMCA that I walked to almost every time. Which brings me to my second point, one of the most walkable areas of Los Angeles is Little Osaka on Sawtelle and Olympic, this is an incredible two-three blocks of smart development (it's a little low slung in places, but the new developments are gradually remedying the eyesore that is single story commercial buildings in the area). It's a fantastic place to eat, walk, and live (cafe balconi makes the best coffee in LA, and coffee tomo is outstanding). That sort of development could expand towards the expo line, on either side of the 405, and the Casden project would be a good anchor point between the expo line and Little Osaka to redevelop the entire area into a more modern urban environment along the lines of Little Osaka. |
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Jul 2, 2013 8:53:05 GMT -8
One of the great problems with this pocket of Los Angeles is the way the freeways were installed. They act as great barrier walls. There are precious few ways under and/or over the freeway. As a result surface traffic --both pedestrian, bicycle and automotive are all relegated to the same streets. Thus the congestion and otherwise unpleasantness of using the streets. There's just not much relief. Since this is also the intersection of two freeways the problem is compounded. Then of course there's the matter of the air quality. It's difficult to appreciate how shoe-horning even more activity into this zone is beneficial to the human experience.
I appreciate the analogy of Wilshire Boulevard prospering adjacent to the low density of the surrounding neighborhoods. I think this is an excellent example. Though It's worth noting Wilshire Boulevard did not sprout up over night but grew moderately over time --and continues to grow.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 2, 2013 11:38:05 GMT -8
Part of the problem with surface street congestion in the area is that the 10 and the 405 freeways intersect so near to national/pico/olympic. Since these are all important arterial roads there's already high volume of traffic, and since people expect large roads to have freeway access, many people use them as freeway feeding routes.
Unfortunately this means that the freeway entrances and exits you would expect for a single major intersection are divided amongst the three above mentioned roads.
For example
you can exit the 405 northbound at National but not at Pico nor Olympic.
You can enter the 405 southbound at National but not at Pico nor Olympic.
You can enter the 405 northbound via a miniature feeder road that can be accessed from either Pico or Olympic, because it splits the difference between them.
Likewise you can exit the 405 southbound onto Sawtelle in between Pico and Olympic.
And this doesn't even get into the problems of how westbound and eastbound pico/olympic traffic have varying levels of difficulties getting to one of these freeway accesses.
And this is just for the 405, naturally you can't access the 10 freeway from any of these because the intersection of the two freeways is too close.
And adding to the traffic, the use of feeder roads on the sepulveda side and the use of sawtelle as a feeder road on the west side means that a lot of the traffic has to navigate from the feeder road to sepulveda to access the main road.
All those little things add up. But I don't necessarily agree that the develpment would impact traffic that severely, people don't all shop at the same time, and putting residents right next to the rail stop and freeway access points allows them to impact the local roads much less than the people living in the single family residencies a 1/4 mile from the proposed Target who would probably drive to it.
The increased traffic created by the retail would almost certainly come from nearby neighborhood residents who would excessively drive to the retail center in lieu of biking or walking, the increased traffic would probably not be coming from the residents that live at the TOD.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jul 2, 2013 14:46:38 GMT -8
Matthew, what have you heard? How did Vancouver and Arlington impose density on it's citizens in a manner which was embraced without discontent? I never said they "imposed density on [their] citizens." It's entirely possible for a community to benefit from density near transit stops, and for members of that community to understand the benefits without it being "imposed." If you would like to read more about the planning process in Arlington, you could look at this useful website for example: www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/planning/CPHDPlanningSmartGrowth.aspxGoogle will help you find other similar websites for cities such as Vancouver. |
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Jul 2, 2013 15:20:00 GMT -8
I see. I misunderstood when you quoted me saying 'imposing density is a recipe for discontent' by responding with 'From what I hear, people in greater Vancouver are far from being discontent. We can also look at Arlington, Virginia if you don't think that Canada should be counted as an example of density working well in proximity to single family houses.' My mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Jul 2, 2013 23:58:26 GMT -8
I would agree, Pico Sepulveda is not very walkable, and I walked the area a LOT when I lived at National/Sepulveda and had a gym at the Westside YMCA that I walked to almost every time. Which brings me to my second point, one of the most walkable areas of Los Angeles is Little Osaka on Sawtelle and Olympic, this is an incredible two-three blocks of smart development (it's a little low slung in places, but the new developments are gradually remedying the eyesore that is single story commercial buildings in the area). It's a fantastic place to eat, walk, and live (cafe balconi makes the best coffee in LA, and coffee tomo is outstanding). That sort of development could expand towards the expo line, on either side of the 405, and the Casden project would be a good anchor point between the expo line and Little Osaka to redevelop the entire area into a more modern urban environment along the lines of Little Osaka. As someone who lives across the street from that YMCA, I couldn't agree more. There's nothing worse than wanting some late night food at Big Tomy's and having to walk through the dead zone south of the Marshalls parking garage entrance. Between the Best Buy on the other side that doesn't even face the street and just opens up to its parking lot and the (abandoned?) run-down brick buildings, it's going to take a lot to make a pleasant pedestrian connection even if you ignore having to walk under the 405. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 3, 2013 6:33:25 GMT -8
Imposing density is a recipe for discontent. If it's to take root it will grow organically. Well put, and for the most part I agree. Certainly the ideal is to place stations and TODs only in neighborhoods which are "transit-receptive". As for station placement, sometimes placement choices are limited. Example: Expo Westwood station. If Cheviot Hills/Rancho Park could be avoided, it would've been ideal. But as for TODs and dense development, I agree that the wishes of the neighborhood should be respected, and growth should be organic. In my example, I would never support any sort of TOD on top of Westwood station, under current conditions. I don't care how much I think (or academics think) that density is good for neighborhoods in general: it would not be good for that neighborhood. Good neighborhoods are more than just density: they are about people and where they call home. Last point: almost every station along the Expo Line is perfect for transit-oriented development. So there is really no need to overdo things and cause a NIMBY backlash. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 3, 2013 7:12:03 GMT -8
nah, Westwood doesn't need a TOD, but it would be great to do the neighborhood a solid policy positive and triple or quadruple the height restriction on all those single family residences. (no need to rezone for multi family).
it's a shame that so many single family areas in LA have had their backyards all disappear because of easements on the street facing and it's illegal to build a two, three or four story home on their plot because of height restrictions. So to make their house bigger, everyone eats up the only space they can build on.. One of the houses I grew up in in the midwest was a very small footprint three story house (plus full basement) built in the 1920s. If engineers could build three story homes 90 years ago, I would think we could build three story homes now. Stupid height restrictions.
A TOD at Westwood would be good for people living at the TOD, you're a 1/3 a mile walk to the TJs at National/Westwood, you're a 1/4 mile walk from the mall/theatre. Not a bad place to live. Which is why the residents don't want to share.
|
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jul 3, 2013 11:39:28 GMT -8
nah, Westwood doesn't need a TOD, but it would be great to do the neighborhood a solid policy positive and triple or quadruple the height restriction on all those single family residences. (no need to rezone for multi family). it's a shame that so many single family areas in LA have had their backyards all disappear because of easements on the street facing and it's illegal to build a two, three or four story home on their plot because of height restrictions. So to make their house bigger, everyone eats up the only space they can build on.. One of the houses I grew up in in the midwest was a very small footprint three story house (plus full basement) built in the 1920s. If engineers could build three story homes 90 years ago, I would think we could build three story homes now. Stupid height restrictions. A TOD at Westwood would be good for people living at the TOD, you're a 1/3 a mile walk to the TJs at National/Westwood, you're a 1/4 mile walk from the mall/theatre. Not a bad place to live. Which is why the residents don't want to share. I believe the City of Los Angeles R1 (single-family) zoning has always allowed multi-story houses, up to 30 feet tall. In many cases existing c. 1950 houses have been remodeled or bulldozed and replaced by much larger houses - you need look no further than Cheviot Hills and Rancho Park. But the lots are small - often only 5,000 SF (50' x 100') - so there's not much yard left after a new 3-4,000 SF house is built. |
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Jul 5, 2013 9:16:07 GMT -8
In fact, on either side of Exposition between Military and Westwood there are several residents which are two story as well as an occasional multi-residental structure. That there are not more of these indicates, I think, both a reflection of economics --the owners simply can't afford the renovation-- as well as a choice to preserve a particular neighborhood sensibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 8, 2013 16:14:47 GMT -8
In fact, on either side of Exposition between Military and Westwood there are several residents which are two story as well as an occasional multi-residental structure. That there are not more of these indicates, I think, both a reflection of economics --the owners simply can't afford the renovation-- as well as a choice to preserve a particular neighborhood sensibility. I lol'd at the thought of preserving the neighborhood sensibility. That boat sailed in the 60s when the I-10 freeway came (I'm mixing transport related metaphors  ) and ripped the neighborhood in half. And there are virtually no original homes remaining in Rancho Park. The area was developed in the 1930 and 40s as an outpost community... cheap and far away from the glamorous big lot mansions of Downtown LA neighborhoods like West Adams, Jefferson Park, University Park etc. Rancho Park featured small lots with cheaply constructed tiny 2 room cookie cutter characterless ranch style homes to house aerospace employees working at the Douglas factory in Santa Monica during the war years; and later after the war, to house an influx of studio employees making low wages. Most of the original ranch homes in the neighborhood were razed and replaced with something a lot bigger during the 1970s and 80s. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 25, 2013 6:35:59 GMT -8
Semi-old news, but great news just the same. Macy's Plaza in Downtown LA is going to be "opened up" to better connect it with surrounding streets. The new design removes the glass facade and roof, and busts open much of the brick facade to allow storefronts along 7th Street and Flower Street, wrapping into the plaza. Best of all, the redesign includes a new entrance to 7th Street/Metro Center, the first on the south side of 7th Street. Ratkovich just completed purchase of the property last month (June). He expects to complete the project in 2015. Official WebsitePress ReleaseArticle by Brigham Yen |
|
. Nice to see someone also looking beyond the next several years. But here is the thing, long term. I agree that when you get to some % of self driving vehicles, traffic will start flowing much more smoothly. If I take your 30-40% estimate at face value, it will still be quite a long time. If they arrive in 5 years (optimistic), it would probably take another 10 years after that for any kind of serious market penetration. Look at hybrids, they came along in 2000, and are still less than <10% of new vehicle sales. The thing that could turn the acceptance in hyper mode would be if for safety reasons the government mandated it in some manner. If automated cars reduce traffic accidents/fatalities by 90%, then they would be crazy not to mandate it. Even then, you are looking at another say 6 years for half the fleet to turn over. So... 5 years till first automated vehicle legally hits the road with passengers, another 3 years for the government to decide it needs to be mandatory, and then another 6 for getting 30-40% of the fleet replaced, thats 14 years minimum.
) and ripped the neighborhood in half.