Automatic Package Handling for the Cities of Tomorrow

[HSTEd]

This came up in another thread, so I thought a thread might be interesting.

This is technically transport.

Essentially a very large part of road/transport traffic these days is associated either with trips shopping, or delivery drivers or one type or another, or people doing rubbish collection. As well as things like the post.

It occurs to me that the vast majority of these items could fit inside a fairly small unitised load.
For example take a look at a 600mm x 400mm x xmm stackable supermarket tote box.

Such a thing can just about fit a large pizza inside it, and the boxes go up to 50+L, which is enough for rubbish and other things assuming rubbish could be transferred on demand.

So how about, for new build housing, especially large housing estates.
We have an automated system for moving boxes that fit those dimensions around?

To start with the system would have to have an access point for delivery/rubbish drivers, but eventually things like takeaways would be built into the system.

It's obviously far too expensive for retrofit at the moment, but if we were to build modern estates with utility tunnels in the streets we can reduce deliveries to rare events for things like sofas and large appliances.

Would allow less land to be given over to large delivery vehicles, and combined with intelligent car parking solutions would allow higher housing densities without further reducing the size of usable plots.

Similar systems for automated package delivery do exist, and each house could have a reception/pickup point where something like an automatic trolley could run along the utility tunnel and the box could be slid to and from it with a relatively simple chain rammer, down the passage which is used to connect the house's basement to the utility tunnel.

Anyway, just a thought.

 

[randyrippley]

the capital cost of what could only be a limited use system would make it unviable.
You highlighted the main problem yourself: the huge majority of legacy houses which could never be retrofitted.
And even if the network cost was centrally funded in some way (very unlikely) the cost of adding a waterproof basement to each new house would be prohibitive. For instance, where I live is on reclaimed Lancashire bogland and the houses all have suspended floors raised on deep pilings - creating a waterproofed tanked basement would be prohibitive even on new builds, and ripping up the roads to create the tunnel for the delivery system would be technically unfeasible and too disruptive.
If we ever build a new generation of new towns then maybe it could be made to work on a local basis.
But what would be the point when we're on the verge of self-driving electric delivery vehicles and deliveries by drone?
A simpler version of what you suggest was attempted in London by pneumatic tube in the 1860s and didn't work then.
There's never anything really new....

 

[HSTEd]

And even if the network cost was centrally funded in some way (very unlikely) the cost of adding a waterproof basement to each new house would be prohibitive. For instance, where I live is on reclaimed Lancashire bogland and the houses all have suspended floors raised on deep pilings - creating a waterproofed tanked basement would be prohibitive even on new builds, and ripping up the roads to create the tunnel for the delivery system would be technically unfeasible and too disruptive.

A waterproofed basement in a new build house is not going to be that expensive compared to the ridiculous costs of floor area in houses these days.
Waterproofing technology has come a long way and excavation on an open site is cheap compared to the costs of housing which are running at well over £2000/sq.m anyway.
A basement is a relatively cheap way to add floor area, even if it's only used for things like hot water cylinders, boilers and the like.

Especially as it seems likely we are going to have to fit large thermal stores to houses for zero carbon heating technologies.

But what would be the point when we're on the verge of self-driving electric delivery vehicles and deliveries by drone?
A simpler version of what you suggest was attempted in London by pneumatic tube in the 1860s and didn't work then.
There's never anything really new....

What roads will all these drones travel on?
Pneumatic tube delivery could never really handle significant payloads, whereas the vast majority of deliveries to houses could be handled by such a system at near zero marginal cost.

Given that we are short several million houses and most of the housing stock is in such awful condition that it really needs just to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch..... This is a once in a century opportunity to do something to set us up for the future.

EDIT:

Average house price in the UK is about £233000 apparently
Average area of a house is only 67.8 square metres.

That implies a price of £3435/sq. m.

Also if we are build an entire estate it is likely that the ground level in the estate would be slightly higher than the ground level before the work started, the spoil from digging the utility tunnels and basements would be used to raise the ground level, so less digging actually has to occur.

It also makes the houses marginally less susceptible to flooding.

 

[randyrippley]

A waterproofed basement in a new build house is not going to be that expensive compared to the ridiculous costs of floor area in houses these days.
Waterproofing technology has come a long way and excavation on an open site is cheap compared to the costs of housing which are running at well over £2000/sq.m anyway.
A basement is a relatively cheap way to add floor area, even if it's only used for things like hot water cylinders, boilers and the like.

Especially as it seems likely we are going to have to fit large thermal stores to houses for zero carbon heating technologies.

obviously it depends on the local conditions, but given that most new builds are likely to be on flood plains then keeping the basement dry isn't going to be that easy, especially if connected to a long tunnel run. The under road tunnels are going to be subject to subsidence (partly due to road traffic) leaks and surface water incursion. Have you ever seen the state of a flooded service tunnel?

What roads will all these drones travel on?

They fly.
Amazon are already delivering that way in trials

Given that we are short several million houses and most of the housing stock is in such awful condition that it really needs just to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch..... This is a once in a century opportunity to do something to set us up for the future.

that means writing off the value of the existing housing stock and borrowing to replace. Have you considered the economic crash that would cause? Yes housing is grossly overvalued, but you can't simply tell the population that their houses are worthless

Also if we are build an entire estate it is likely that the ground level in the estate would be slightly higher than the ground level before the work started, the spoil from digging the utility tunnels and basements would be used to raise the ground level, so less digging actually has to occur.

It also makes the houses marginally less susceptible to flooding.

Not really, as the first thing you do on a large site is scrape off the top soil, which is a couple of feet at least in most places
And anyway the excavated soil wouldn't be firm enough to consolidate for building - you'd need a firm foundation of chippings or scalpings

 

[HSTEd]

obviously it depends on the local conditions, but given that most new builds are likely to be on flood plains then keeping the basement dry isn't going to be that easy, especially if connected to a long tunnel run. The under road tunnels are going to be subject to subsidence (partly due to road traffic) leaks and surface water incursion. Have you ever seen the state of a flooded service tunnel?

If they have proper foundations the subsidence issue should be relatively easy to keep under control.
Certainly it will lead to a higher quality road surface than found in traditional methods where the road is being dug up and badly relaid every year for some work or other.

This is why service tunnels were adopted in places like Poundbury.

Also design would try to limit road traffic to the houses, with secure parking provided at the end of the street to save road space.
Streets would be one way, single lane delivery roads probably surfaced with bricks in a jaunty pattern.

They fly.
Amazon are already delivering that way in trials

In good weather, in daylight.
And they have yet to commercially offer that service in the UK.
Such a service is going to be questionably efficient in winter when most people will want packages delivered in the evening, after they are home from work - probably in the dark and potentially in stormy or foggy winter weather.

Also can you imagine the insane noise from thousands of delivery drones buzzing around all day?

that means writing off the value of the existing housing stock and borrowing to replace. Have you considered the economic crash that would cause? Yes housing is grossly overvalued, but you can't simply tell the population that their houses are worthless

The existing housing stock is not worth money because of the physical existance of the house.
It is worth money because of the piece of paper from the council saying a house can exist there.

It is unlikely that a policy permitting existing housing to be replaced 1:1 with more modern housing suited to modern conditions will cause a drastic crash.
Also, whilst transitional shocks might be nasty, the current system hurts huge numbers of people each and every day and will until something is done about it.

Not really, as the first thing you do on a large site is scrape off the top soil, which is a couple of feet at least in most places
And anyway the excavated soil wouldn't be firm enough to consolidate for building - you'd need a firm foundation of chippings or scalpings

Why would you be consolidating the removed soil for building?
The houses will all be standing on basements so they will have foundations below the initial ground level, and the utility tunnels will be excavated to at least the same level (possibly below for more flexible sewerage options).

The areas that get the soil tipped on them are the gardens and such, which don't really matter if they start to settle.

But as you said, it is highly unlikely that the government would want to spend any money at all on any of these things, and they are far too capital intensive for the private sector.

 

[Bald Rick]

Two things - I can advise from personal experience that basements are not cheap to add to new build houses on a typical floor plan. If they were, most new builds would have them. Often it means piling, and it certainly means much, much more muck away. One basement I have personal experience added 10% of floorspace for 30% increase in construction cost.

Secondly, the concept of everything coming in and out by some sort of automatic system brings to mind ‘The Machine Stops’ by E M Foster.

 

[HSTEd]

One basement I have personal experience added 10% of floorspace for 30% increase in construction cost.

Construction cost is, however, not the same as housing cost.

The valuable part of a housing unit is not the house, nor in most cases the land itself, it is in the slip of paper from the state saying a housing unit can exist there.
This is why basements are not included, because although they are good value for society as a whole, they are not good value for developers.

The builder just wants to buy agricultural land, use their connections to obtain planning permission relatively easily and then throw up as many units as possible as cheaply as possible. Cutting as many corners as possible and producing execrable housing units in the process.

Secondly, the concept of everything coming in and out by some sort of automatic system brings to mind ‘The Machine Stops’ by E M Foster.

Whilst it is slightly more explicit than many cases, this is no different to how our society functions already.
We are already dependent on an enormously complex machine that it is difficult for us even to conceive of.

 

[Andrew S]

most of the housing stock is in such awful condition that it really needs just to be torn down

Really??

 

[HSTEd]

Really??

Yes.
Recent attempts to buy a house and now inspecting my new house have really removed misconceptions as to the state of the housing stock.
And these experiences are corroborated by various professional and academic studies.

It is generally in very poor condition - little insulation, draughty, small and otherwise crumbling.
If we want to get anywhere near energy efficiency standards millions of units will have to be torn down.

Especially since newbuild housing is so poorly designed and wasteful of valuable development land.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Given that we are short several million houses and most of the housing stock is in such awful condition that it really needs just to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch..... This is a once in a century opportunity to do something to set us up for the future.

Really?
I've just wandered round mine and everything seems fine.

 

[HSTEd]

Really?
I've just wandered round mine and everything seems fine.

Well a sample of one is rather small..... I have seen rather a large number myself looking for a house.

And there are various stats that back it up, including that UK housing takes far more energy to heat than many countries with much colder climates.
And that this housing is smaller than in most of Europe.

EDIT:

Here is one report from Parliament on the fraction of "decent" housing.

 

[Bald Rick]

Construction cost is, however, not the same as housing cost.

The valuable part of a housing unit is not the house, nor in most cases the land itself, it is in the slip of paper from the state saying a housing unit can exist there.
This is why basements are not included, because although they are good value for society as a whole, they are not good value for developers.

The builder just wants to buy agricultural land, use their connections to obtain planning permission relatively easily and then throw up as many units as possible as cheaply as possible. Cutting as many corners as possible and producing execrable housing units in the process.

I do agree that, in some places, the valuable part of the property is the planning consent.

However, I’ll put some numbers on my example. An old house demolished, with a new house built in its place. Consent granted. Around 300sqm, including 30sqm of basement. Construction cost (including all fixtures, fittings and decoration) £330k. Of which £80k was the basement. The owner doesn’t feel it was good value.

Nevertheless, in many parts of the country, the construction cost of the property (plus developer profit) is the value of the house. I’m in one now. (Property and part of the country).

We already have an effective system for delivering and collecting ‘stuff’ from almost every residential property in the country. And with electrification / automation of the road vehicle fleet, it will be pretty ‘clean’ and efficient too.

 

[B&I]

Yes.
Recent attempts to buy a house and now inspecting my new house have really removed misconceptions as to the state of the housing stock.
And these experiences are corroborated by various professional and academic studies.

It is generally in very poor condition - little insulation, draughty, small and otherwise crumbling.
If we want to get anywhere near energy efficiency standards millions of units will have to be torn down.

Especially since newbuild housing is so poorly designed and wasteful of valuable development land.

So, the solution to the poor standards of much new build housing is not to tighten building regulations, enforce better compliance with the relevant standards, force housebuilders to spend more of their obscene profits on producing better quality products, or spend more public money on social housing. It is instead to demolish the existing housing stock, regardless of quality.

This is an almost heroically demented idea.

Getting back to the original point, perhaps instead of flattening the entire country to facilitate deliveries, we could consider consuming less, and deciding less wasteful means of delivery (eg electrifying commercial vehicles, using a more.localised distribution network, consolidating delivery systems rather than having several million couriers running around in clapped out diesel vans for less than the minimum wage).

 

[HSTEd]

So, the solution to the poor standards of much new build housing is not to tighten building regulations,

Moving forward it would be best to do this, but the fact remains that the vast majority of the housing stock we will be using for the next fifty years already exists.
We are targeting 300,000 housing units a year of growth.
The housing stock is 28 million units.

Retrofit or reconstruction is definitely necessary to make any significant difference

force housebuilders to spend more of their obscene profits on producing better quality products

Do we also just magically wish for world peace and the end of all injustice?
The current position of housebuilders is inherent in the current planning system.

By restricting the construction of new homes you facilitate an oligopoly to seize total control of the housing market, which is exactly what happened.

or spend more public money on social housing.

How does spending money on social housing improve the standards of the millions of substandard housing units retroactively?

It is instead to demolish the existing housing stock, regardless of quality.

It's not really regardless of quality, when in many places 90% of it is inadequate.
The cost of determining which units are not and working around them would likely cost more than a clean sweep.

And do families really want to live in the middle of a housing estate sized building site for years?

This is an almost heroically demented idea.

Unlike your proposals it might actually achieve the results required to actually significantly increase the efficiency of housing stock.

Old style solid wall properties can not practically be retrofit with cavity walls, building walls on the outside of the property (where it is even possible) costs such enormous quantities that modern construction methods could deliver a newbuild unit for a similar overall price.
(Structural brickwork is a ludicrous way to build houses, which is why commercial buildings are not built like that).

Getting back to the original point, perhaps instead of flattening the entire country to facilitate deliveries, we could consider consuming less, and deciding less wasteful means of delivery (eg electrifying commercial vehicles, using a more.localised distribution network, consolidating delivery systems rather than having several million couriers running around in clapped out diesel vans for less than the minimum wage).

So how do you plan to do all that without a massive increase in state control of every facet of the economy?
Noone is going to win an election on a platform of "by the way you will be required to buy less stuff" for a start.

It is none of the businesses interests to consolidate deliveries however, having a bunch of struggling delivery operators serves their interests perfectly.

 

[B&I]

Moving forward it would be best to do this, but the fact remains that the vast majority of the housing stock we will be using for the next fifty years already exists.
We are targeting 300,000 housing units a year of growth.
The housing stock is 28 million units.

Retrofit or reconstruction is definitely necessary to make any significant difference


Do we also just magically wish for world peace and the end of all injustice?
The current position of housebuilders is inherent in the current planning system.

By restricting the construction of new homes you facilitate an oligopoly to seize total control of the housing market, which is exactly what happened.


How does spending money on social housing improve the standards of the millions of substandard housing units retroactively?

It's not really regardless of quality, when in many places 90% of it is inadequate.
The cost of determining which units are not and working around them would likely cost more than a clean sweep.

And do families really want to live in the middle of a housing estate sized building site for years?


Unlike your proposals it might actually achieve the results required to actually significantly increase the efficiency of housing stock.

Old style solid wall properties can not practically be retrofit with cavity walls, building walls on the outside of the property (where it is even possible) costs such enormous quantities that modern construction methods could deliver a newbuild unit for a similar overall price.
(Structural brickwork is a ludicrous way to build houses, which is why commercial buildings are not built like that).


So how do you plan to do all that without a massive increase in state control of every facet of the economy?
Noone is going to win an election on a platform of "by the way you will be required to buy less stuff" for a start.

It is none of the businesses interests to consolidate deliveries however, having a bunch of struggling delivery operators serves their interests perfectly.

So, trying to force housebuilders to spend more money on improving quality of houses and less on their profits, or trying to rationalise the market for.home delivery services, are less realistic goals than replacing the entire building stock ? And confiscating the assets of however many million householders would not require radical state intervention in the economy ?

 

[HSTEd]

So, trying to force housebuilders to spend more money on improving quality of houses and less on their profits, or trying to rationalise the market for.home delivery services, are less realistic goals than replacing the entire building stock ?

The houses don't try to subvert you during the process do they?

And confiscating the assets of however many million householders would not require radical state intervention in the economy ?

A one off intervention in their lives, as opposed to intervening in their lives for the rest of time?

 

[B&I]

The houses don't try to subvert you during the process do they?

A one off intervention in their lives, as opposed to intervening in their lives for the rest of time?

I genuinely struggle to understand how you think it will be easier to force around 15 to 20 million people to give up the houses they own, and find the resources to replace all of these, than to force around a dozen (?) major housebuilders to build houses to a decent standard