November 10, 2010 at 7:52 am
I'd love a car that drove itself. To be able to go and get very drunk without worrying about getting the tube home, knowing you can just collapse into your own car and say "Home James" and leave it to do the rest.
Not to mention, being able to get drunk before going to IKEA, it would be almost tolerable.
November 10, 2010 at 8:33 am
GSquared (11/10/2010)
I agree with a previous post that it doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than the current system, which is more lethal than any war in history. That's not a very high bar to set.On the other hand, why bother with individual transportation if you're going to do this kind of thing? It would be a much simpler engineering problem to set up high-speed rail and cheap car rental at every station. We already have the tech for that, and it probably wouldn't be any more expensive than building computer controlled cars and all the support infrastructure for them. Either one will completely transform the economy, just in different directions.
However, I personally like the ability to (a) own a car (not rail+rent at destination), and (b) stop at scenic viewpoints and such for no good reason at all. So, while I think an auto-drive system is possible in the relatively near future, I don't think it's feasible or desirable.
There already is some of this in dense areas, with Zipcar. Seems to work very well.
The light rail works very well in Denver, and lots of people use it, but it also doesn't scale well to a large variety of trips to different places. I think to some extent we need some cultural change if this is to work at any scale.
November 10, 2010 at 8:44 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (11/10/2010)
There already is some of this in dense areas, with Zipcar. Seems to work very well.
The light rail works very well in Denver, and lots of people use it, but it also doesn't scale well to a large variety of trips to different places. I think to some extent we need some cultural change if this is to work at any scale.
Zipcars are great in a populated area. Less useful, for example if you get off the train and have to drive it to the suburbs. The likelihood that someone else will be close enough to use it (and that one will then be available when you need to get back) is problematic.
Light rail is one of those things that politicians love to display, but pragmatically they are generally not a good solution.
1) Cost of construction per mile is vastly higher than roads, much higher than adding a bus lane to existing highways. Every one built in recent times has gone way over budget, and virtually none are actually recovering their costs and capital.
2) The routes are fixed, and need to be virtually linear. Compare that with buses, which can go virtually anywhere and can alter routes to suite changing ridership, rather than trying to force ridership into the existing route.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
November 10, 2010 at 8:48 am
Zipcar would be far more useful with automated cars. Rather then having to go to your nearest car and then return it to the same place, as is currently the case in London, your car could pick you up from home, then drive itself back to it's designated space when it had finished.
November 10, 2010 at 8:55 am
I agree light rail has issues. The biggest one being those fixed routes. As long as you have dense destinations, it works. In Denver, they have vastly exceed ridership, and likely because we have a good amount of downtown workers, with buses picking up at light rail stations. A large college downdown and along the main rail, so lots of students riding, including commuters. And we have Broncos/Nuggets/Rockies/Avalanche providing large crowds.
I do like buses, however the time spent moving on a bus makes it hard, and inefficient for me. Better wifi or 3g/4g might help make it work better, or more buses. Denver has done a good job of making park and ride areas all over, so the bus system seems to work better here than I have seen it in many places.
November 10, 2010 at 9:05 am
I believe that people of average and higher intelligence would be happy to turn the control over to the computer in appropriate situations, if presented with bona-fide evidence that the automated systems, even with occasional bugs, caused less accidents, and increased road capacity dramatically, and resulted in less fatalities and injuries.
There is no question the technology is already capable, as evidenced by cars that can park for you, and brake for you and keep you in your lane if you fall asleep. All that remains is a large-scale pilot project to be able to prove the safety numbers.
Even if all of that could occur, I predict this technology (in its fullest form) will NEVER be allowed on American roads. This is because of the unanswered question: If a computer bug causes a crash, regardless of severity, who would be liable for the damages/injuries?
Our entire system relies on our ability to determine culpability and collect payment. Changes in this system are VERY rare. You could propose a change that everyone must purchase a "rider" on their auto insurance that automatically covers the policyholder, his auto, and his passengers, when the car is being driven by an automated system. That would be logical, but no-fault insurance means higher insurance premiums, and less tort (lawsuits), which means there will be a large constituency lobbying against the change (consumers and trial attorneys).
All of this does not account for the fact that you would have to have some kind of signal built into the roads that identifies "automated zones" to the auto's computer. How would we pay to have that technology installed when we can't even manage road repairs on most highways without the Federal government printing new money? The long term savings realized by not having to add lanes to add capacity would more than make up for any initial cost, but that would require politicians to do the right thing when the time comes.
Like Steve, I'm skeptical automated highways will ever come to pass. This is NOT because I lack sufficient faith in technology (as Steve apparently does), it is because I lack sufficient faith in politicians, lawyers, and the general electorate.
Politicians spend billions on fixed guideway (train) systems that can't even carry enough passengers to make up for a single lane of highway capacity (e.g. FasTracks in Colorado and/or CDOT's latest idiotic I-70 train proposal), rather than spending the mere millions to add a lane to the highway. They'd rather pass huge tax increases to cover the shortfall in road funding caused by increasing fuel efficiency (and siphon much of that money off into pet projects that don't reduce congestion) than embrace user-pays models like HOV/HOT lanes, congestion (supply/demand) pricing, toll roads, etc.
A lot of people lack faith in the Federal government these days. Personally, I lack faith in all the levels of government.
November 10, 2010 at 9:08 am
The routes are fixed, and need to be virtually linear. Compare that with buses, which can go virtually anywhere and can alter routes to suite changing ridership, rather than trying to force ridership into the existing route
It is because the rail line is fixed that it becomes part of the long term solution.
Picture three smallish towns, similar in size, where A builds light rail, B buys some busses and C does nothing.
Twenty years later B has altered the routes several times to accomodate changes of various kinds, but looking at a map of the city it still looks pretty much the same (and a lot like C)
Meanwhile in A merchants who need foot traffic were willing to pay more in rent to be right on the rail line and in turn developers increased the density of commercial buildings along the rail line because they knew the line would not move before the mortgage was paid off The planning board approved the higher density (without lots more parking) because they knew the rail line was staying there.
After twenty years you have very dense commercial and office right on the rail line, high density housing (apartments, condos or townhouses) within a couple of blocks of the rail line and then single family homes further away.
Now A has 90% of its commercial space walking distance to the rail, over half the population within walking distance and much less of downtown is taken up with parking lots. You could live there and not own a car (or at least not drive it most days)
You cannot grow an oak tree if you transplant the acorn every six months.
November 10, 2010 at 9:14 am
How come my Sim City 3 never seamed to work out that way? 😛
November 10, 2010 at 9:16 am
What happens when the railway company goes bust?
Rail only ever works if all you want to do is visit somewhere on the rail network. You'd need a car to visit your mum in C.
Roads will always be king because they are "Door to Door" when you want not when the railway want.
I travel to work on a train because I work 10 minutes walk from the station at both ends and it's cheaper than driving.
I can't call in anywhere on the way home to get shopping & such like.
I used to work a similar distance but the journey crossed county boundaries and was about twice as much as driving.
November 10, 2010 at 9:22 am
Don't forget, Americans love cars. It's built into us since childhood. Driving is convenient and you don't have to pay a fee each time you get into the car. You can leave anytime you wish. If you forget something, you can turn around and go back for it with out switching stations and waisting time. It may work well in condensed older cities like NY, but most cities in the US are more spread out. Plus, how are you going to haul around your 5 kids, dog, and groceries unless you have the family SUV? That would be a logistical nightmare on light-rail.
November 10, 2010 at 9:23 am
Regarding "some type of closed track", try exercising the old school common law "right to travel" by walking or riding a horse on an interstate highway some time.
In that interstate highways already require a user, in addition to paying taxes, to own or rent an expensive piece of machinery that meets established technical specifications that change over time (I believe there are classes of motorcycle not permitted on interstates, and how's carburator technology doing on meeting emissions standards these days?), there is no reason that Congress could not require the addition of automation hardware and software to cars to continue to use the interstate highway system after some date sufficiently in the future -- just like the rollout of HD TV receivers.
November 10, 2010 at 9:24 am
In Denver, and in Europe, lots of the light rails/trains allow bikes on them. We even have some racks on buses/trains here.
November 10, 2010 at 9:33 am
steven.malone (11/10/2010)
The routes are fixed, and need to be virtually linear. Compare that with buses, which can go virtually anywhere and can alter routes to suite changing ridership, rather than trying to force ridership into the existing route
It is because the rail line is fixed that it becomes part of the long term solution.
Picture three smallish towns, similar in size, where A builds light rail, B buys some busses and C does nothing.
Twenty years later B has altered the routes several times to accomodate changes of various kinds, but looking at a map of the city it still looks pretty much the same (and a lot like C)
.
ahhh viewed from the bureaucratic perspective...
But people don't cooperate that well with top down, decided scenarios. Many light rails have had disastrous drops in ridership because the population decided not to cooperate with the planners. Detroit has extensive rail transportation to largely abandoned areas. Peoples' living, working, housing patterns involve much more than simply the location of rail. Locking one's development into such a plan could easily be a disaster in the making.
Which is why buses do, much more cheaply what rail cannot.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
November 10, 2010 at 9:34 am
Steve - Ever try to ride your bike to work via Bus/Train in Denver? I have many times. It's a nightmare. Arrive at work sweaty - no place to shower. Add 1+ hour to daily commute time, taken directly from my daughter and wife. Not to mention this is completely impossible in the winter.
Public transit is fine, and a good thing for people who can't afford cars. These people's employment options are dramatically increased by the availability of public transit. Then, after working a time at a good job, they invariably buy a car.
This is known as the "American Dream", part of which is that if you work hard, educate yourself, save up, and otherwise stay productive, that you can eventually buy a nice house in the suburbs with a yard big enough to ride horses and/or allow the kids to play in the yard.
Sound familiar Steve? You wouldn't be one of those people that wants everyone else to ride the bus/train so the highways will be nice and clear for your SUV? You wouldn't be one of those people who wants everyone else to live in densly packed urban centers so you can afford a larger parcel of property (due to supply/demand) in the suburbs?
November 10, 2010 at 9:43 am
Adam Gardner (11/10/2010)
Steve - Ever try to ride your bike to work via Bus/Train in Denver? I have many times. It's a nightmare. Arrive at work sweaty - no place to shower. Add 1+ hour to daily commute time, taken directly from my daughter and wife. Not to mention this is completely impossible in the winter.Public transit is fine, and a good thing for people who can't afford cars. These people's employment options are dramatically increased by the availability of public transit. Then, after working a time at a good job, they invariably buy a car.
This is known as the "American Dream", part of which is that if you work hard, educate yourself, save up, and otherwise stay productive, that you can eventually buy a nice house in the suburbs with a yard big enough to ride horses and/or allow the kids to play in the yard.
Sound familiar Steve? You wouldn't be one of those people that wants everyone else to ride the bus/train so the highways will be nice and clear for your SUV? You wouldn't be one of those people who wants everyone else to live in densly packed urban centers so you can afford a larger parcel of property (due to supply/demand) in the suburbs?
Nah. That's not Steve. That's me! And not only that, but I want you to pay taxes so MY highway can be toll-free and well maintained, as well as you paying fares on your public transit so I don't have to pay taxes to support them! 😀
Honestly though, I think both systems can exist side-by-side, and cost-effectively, but probably only if government intervention in them is kept to a minimum.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 75 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply