4 ms·

Not surprised. But not hugely important in the scheme of things. The fact that the project exists and is being worked on seems a win to me given public transit

Not surprised. But not hugely important in the scheme of things. The fact that the project exists and is being worked on seems a win to me given public transit history in the USA.

CamperBob2 11y ago
Building more trains and other fixed-location transit systems that will be finished right around the time autonomous road vehicles start to become viable seems like a bad idea. Public transit planners need to get a clue, seriously. The cars of 2050 are not going to be their father's Oldsmobile. This is more of an issue in urban environments than for cross-country transit, of course, but still... if trains are the answer, then we're asking the wrong question.
- hugh4 11y ago
  I'd never previously considered the question of what sort of speed a self-driving car could reach on an intercity freeway. No reason why it would need to be significantly slower than a high-speed train. Think individual cars are inefficient? Not compared to a train, and especially not compared to a train that is anything other than 100% full.
  - adrianN 11y ago
    A high speed train goes 300km/h, some can do 400. You'd need a huge tank in your car to make it go that speed for any amount of time. Cars need to go slower because they have worse air resistance than trains and the tires get hot and wear out quickly.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      You could conceivably space cars closely enough when they're automated that the aerodynamic drag would be considerably reduced for every car except the front one. You're still going to have to deal with rolling resistance and going up-hill you'd have to limit the speed of such a convoy to the speed the slowest car can attain. But for most distances that a car will normally travel the difference between 150 and 300 Km/h will not translate into meaningful changes in time spent on the road and probably you're still going to beat high-speed rail in door-to-door scenarios.
    - CamperBob2 11y ago
      Airplanes are even faster... yet it's possible to drive from LA to SF in less time than it would take to fly, even if you never break the present-day speed limits. Remember, it's not fair if you count the distance from one city limit to another. You have to consider the time it takes a given passenger to get from their home or business to their end destination. Also, all it will take is one (un)lucky 9/11-style terrorist attack, and everything we've come to know and love about air travel and the TSA will instantly apply to the train station. This is a matter of "when," not "if." Finally, there's also a hidden economic cost associated with fixed tracks, similar to the costs/risks borne by someone who buys a house. They're stuck there. A homeowner might like to move to a nearby city to take a better job, but oops, they're still underwater on their mortgage. Likewise, locations and other trends in urban economic development shouldn't be biased by a decision made 50 years earlier regarding where to put the train tracks. It's better to stay agile, and trains are perhaps the least agile things humanity has ever built.
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  One train is like 500 autonomous vechicles on one road, and more comfortable. It will still win energy-wise. That you can hop on robotaxi after arriving makes it even more desirable.
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    No, you're not thinking of it the right way. 500 autonomous vehicles on the road are a train. Only without expensive, single-purpose hardwired tracks.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Expensive, single-purpose hardwired tracks that make it much more efficient for the whole vehicle to travel. 500 autonomous vehicles all carry engines, batteries, lights and a lot of stuff that is not needed when those car are all traveling together, but wastes energy anyway. Also, the price tag of those single-purpose tracks is amortized by all the millions of "cars" that travel on them.
      - CamperBob2 11y ago
        Something you're missing is that autonomous cars can bring an end to the era where everyone feels compelled to own at least one car, if not two. Most cars spend 1-2 hours per day on the road and 22-23 hours parked somewhere. With appropriate resource planning, a network of autonomous cars can probably serve as many people as our current urban highway systems do with 10% of the vehicles. And you can rest assured none of them are going to be burning gasoline. People don't understand just how insanely different things are going to look in another couple of decades. Trains make sense if, and only if, everything stays exactly the same.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        I am first to hope for the autonomous cars and ending car ownership, because IMO the current road situation is absolutely ridiculous (In the meantime, someone would please train drivers like they do train airline pilots? I.e. beat the stupidity out of them with enough training.). A PRT network made out of autonomous electric cars would be something absolutely wonderful... in a city. But between the cities, you still have tons of cars going together, in a line, all the time. There is no flexibility here, almost everyone is going the same direction for most of the way. I don't see how even autonomous electric cars could beat trains on that. I think that the best way for the future is bullet trains/hyperloop connecting the large cities, and PRT within the city. I'm open to math that shows otherwise though.
- Tinyyy 11y ago
  Trains are still faster and more efficient than cars, autonomous or not.
- Bouncingsoul1 11y ago
  Relying on something you might have in the future seems like a bad idea to me. Infrasturcture needs constant improvements if you don'T do anything for years you might end up in a unresolveable mess.
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    I know one thing we definitely won't have in the future, if we build this boondoggle: 68 billion dollars.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  It seems a really good idea, to me. The autonomous autos are good local connectors to high speed rail or transit systems optimized for lnger-range travel, but not much better than existing autos add long-range travel options.
Shivetya 11y ago
heavy rail, whether in city or between them always cost more than any alternative. this is a pure political project, it will not benefit any significant number of people other than those connected with the powers that be. as another pointed out, automated vehicles will likely negate any purpose to this train. just automating buses alone will negate the need for any heavy rail people transport because unlike trains, bus routes are flexible.

Not surprised. But not hugely important in the scheme of things. The fact that the project exists and is being worked on seems a win to me given public transit history in the USA.

CamperBob2 11y ago

Building more trains and other fixed-location transit systems that will be finished right around the time autonomous road vehicles start to become viable seems like a bad idea. Public transit planners need to get a clue, seriously. The cars of 2050 are not going to be their father's Oldsmobile. This is more of an issue in urban environments than for cross-country transit, of course, but still... if trains are the answer, then we're asking the wrong question.

hugh4 11y ago
I'd never previously considered the question of what sort of speed a self-driving car could reach on an intercity freeway. No reason why it would need to be significantly slower than a high-speed train. Think individual cars are inefficient? Not compared to a train, and especially not compared to a train that is anything other than 100% full.
- adrianN 11y ago
  A high speed train goes 300km/h, some can do 400. You'd need a huge tank in your car to make it go that speed for any amount of time. Cars need to go slower because they have worse air resistance than trains and the tires get hot and wear out quickly.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    You could conceivably space cars closely enough when they're automated that the aerodynamic drag would be considerably reduced for every car except the front one. You're still going to have to deal with rolling resistance and going up-hill you'd have to limit the speed of such a convoy to the speed the slowest car can attain. But for most distances that a car will normally travel the difference between 150 and 300 Km/h will not translate into meaningful changes in time spent on the road and probably you're still going to beat high-speed rail in door-to-door scenarios.
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    Airplanes are even faster... yet it's possible to drive from LA to SF in less time than it would take to fly, even if you never break the present-day speed limits. Remember, it's not fair if you count the distance from one city limit to another. You have to consider the time it takes a given passenger to get from their home or business to their end destination. Also, all it will take is one (un)lucky 9/11-style terrorist attack, and everything we've come to know and love about air travel and the TSA will instantly apply to the train station. This is a matter of "when," not "if." Finally, there's also a hidden economic cost associated with fixed tracks, similar to the costs/risks borne by someone who buys a house. They're stuck there. A homeowner might like to move to a nearby city to take a better job, but oops, they're still underwater on their mortgage. Likewise, locations and other trends in urban economic development shouldn't be biased by a decision made 50 years earlier regarding where to put the train tracks. It's better to stay agile, and trains are perhaps the least agile things humanity has ever built.
guard-of-terra 11y ago
One train is like 500 autonomous vechicles on one road, and more comfortable. It will still win energy-wise. That you can hop on robotaxi after arriving makes it even more desirable.
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  No, you're not thinking of it the right way. 500 autonomous vehicles on the road are a train. Only without expensive, single-purpose hardwired tracks.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Expensive, single-purpose hardwired tracks that make it much more efficient for the whole vehicle to travel. 500 autonomous vehicles all carry engines, batteries, lights and a lot of stuff that is not needed when those car are all traveling together, but wastes energy anyway. Also, the price tag of those single-purpose tracks is amortized by all the millions of "cars" that travel on them.
    - CamperBob2 11y ago
      Something you're missing is that autonomous cars can bring an end to the era where everyone feels compelled to own at least one car, if not two. Most cars spend 1-2 hours per day on the road and 22-23 hours parked somewhere. With appropriate resource planning, a network of autonomous cars can probably serve as many people as our current urban highway systems do with 10% of the vehicles. And you can rest assured none of them are going to be burning gasoline. People don't understand just how insanely different things are going to look in another couple of decades. Trains make sense if, and only if, everything stays exactly the same.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        I am first to hope for the autonomous cars and ending car ownership, because IMO the current road situation is absolutely ridiculous (In the meantime, someone would please train drivers like they do train airline pilots? I.e. beat the stupidity out of them with enough training.). A PRT network made out of autonomous electric cars would be something absolutely wonderful... in a city. But between the cities, you still have tons of cars going together, in a line, all the time. There is no flexibility here, almost everyone is going the same direction for most of the way. I don't see how even autonomous electric cars could beat trains on that. I think that the best way for the future is bullet trains/hyperloop connecting the large cities, and PRT within the city. I'm open to math that shows otherwise though.
Tinyyy 11y ago
Trains are still faster and more efficient than cars, autonomous or not.
Bouncingsoul1 11y ago
Relying on something you might have in the future seems like a bad idea to me. Infrasturcture needs constant improvements if you don'T do anything for years you might end up in a unresolveable mess.
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  I know one thing we definitely won't have in the future, if we build this boondoggle: 68 billion dollars.
dragonwriter 11y ago
It seems a really good idea, to me. The autonomous autos are good local connectors to high speed rail or transit systems optimized for lnger-range travel, but not much better than existing autos add long-range travel options.

Shivetya 11y ago

heavy rail, whether in city or between them always cost more than any alternative. this is a pure political project, it will not benefit any significant number of people other than those connected with the powers that be. as another pointed out, automated vehicles will likely negate any purpose to this train. just automating buses alone will negate the need for any heavy rail people transport because unlike trains, bus routes are flexible.