4 ms·

I think self-driving vehicles will make projects like this even rarer. The two benefits this project achieves are: 1. Safer travel on rails instead of trucks (

I think self-driving vehicles will make projects like this even rarer. The two benefits this project achieves are: 1. Safer travel on rails instead of trucks (accidents & environmental) 2. Faster transport between regions (saving 1 - 1.5 hrs) Safety will become almost a non-concern with self driving cars. Work still needs to be done to minimize environmental impact, but electric cars are coming on strong. Faster transport times will be a tougher sell when we are actually free to be productive when traveling. With an automated driving system, vehicles become offices/lounges. Self driving cars don't completely address these concerns, but they make the $10 billion price tag hard to justify. I'm not saying this project isn't justified, I just love examining the impact self-operating vehicles will have on our future.

syncsynchalt 11y ago
Not so much in this particular case — the purpose of the tunnel is to reduce heavy truck traffic through environmentally sensitive areas. The tunnel is explicitly built to satisfy a goal of transforming truck freight to rail freight. The fast passenger time is only listed as a side benefit.
- abalone 11y ago
  Not to mention electric is not viable for long haul heavy trucking (for the foreseeable future).
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    It kind of depends on how you envison that. With existing intermodal systems, there's already something somewhat resembling electrified long-haul heavy trucking, though largely in Europe. For various reasons, the US has little electrified freight, and doesn't forsee it for the forseable future, though it's clearly technically feasible. There are several other possibilities for electrified freight, though battery-EV is almost certainly out of the picture. IIRC BMW have experimented with a battery-powered EV tractor-trailer, but it's used exclusively for local delivery at low speeds (~40 kph IIRC) at a range of ~5-10 km. A very limited pilot. Self-driving cargo vehicles capable of "training" on highways, with catenary or similar feeds, could offer long-haul separable vehicle cargo capacity. I'm not aware of any serious plans for such a system though, and it would require both massive investment in vehicles and roadways. Present planning at the US EIA is for natural gas fueled cargo -- both truck and rail.
rayiner 11y ago
This tunnel as well as its predecessor is mainly for rail travel. Trains are already far safer than cars (and there is no reason to believe self-driving cars will be safer than trains), and already let you work en route. Also, this tunnel is for freight rail too, and self-driving cars or trucks aren't really an alternative to that either. Also: productivity in the office > productivity in a train >> productivity as the passenger in a car. I say that as someone who commutes about three hours a day by train and Uber.
- ohitsdom 11y ago
  Working inside of a self-driving car in the future will be much different from working inside a normal car. Current vehicles are primarily designed around the driving experience. When you don't need a steering wheel, gas/brake pedals, surrounding area visibility, a car's interior could be completely designed. No reason it shouldn't be on par with a private train car. It should certainly surpass regular train seating, since you don't have an aisle going through the center of the vehicle as a design constraint.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Getting rid of the driver doesn't get rid of physics. You can't make the car taller or wider or heavier without impacting fuel economy and stability. You can't get rid of intermittent stops for cross-traffic and pedestrian crossings. And you will never be able to match the smoothness of a heavy rail vehicle with a lightweight road vehicle.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
nerfhammer 11y ago
This route is mostly for freight, not commuting. I'm sure very few people tried to commute across this section of the Alps by car before this.
this_user 11y ago
Self-driving cars still need a way to pass that specific mountain range. Right now there is the old rail tunnel, the road tunnel and the mountain pass. The latter usually closes in autumn as do many others in the Alps. The road tunnel has a length of 16.9 km and two lanes. All of this creates a huge bottleneck. So unless someone invents a flying car, tunnels will still need to be built in regions like this.

syncsynchalt 11y ago

Not so much in this particular case — the purpose of the tunnel is to reduce heavy truck traffic through environmentally sensitive areas. The tunnel is explicitly built to satisfy a goal of transforming truck freight to rail freight. The fast passenger time is only listed as a side benefit.

abalone 11y ago
Not to mention electric is not viable for long haul heavy trucking (for the foreseeable future).
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  It kind of depends on how you envison that. With existing intermodal systems, there's already something somewhat resembling electrified long-haul heavy trucking, though largely in Europe. For various reasons, the US has little electrified freight, and doesn't forsee it for the forseable future, though it's clearly technically feasible. There are several other possibilities for electrified freight, though battery-EV is almost certainly out of the picture. IIRC BMW have experimented with a battery-powered EV tractor-trailer, but it's used exclusively for local delivery at low speeds (~40 kph IIRC) at a range of ~5-10 km. A very limited pilot. Self-driving cargo vehicles capable of "training" on highways, with catenary or similar feeds, could offer long-haul separable vehicle cargo capacity. I'm not aware of any serious plans for such a system though, and it would require both massive investment in vehicles and roadways. Present planning at the US EIA is for natural gas fueled cargo -- both truck and rail.

rayiner 11y ago

This tunnel as well as its predecessor is mainly for rail travel. Trains are already far safer than cars (and there is no reason to believe self-driving cars will be safer than trains), and already let you work en route. Also, this tunnel is for freight rail too, and self-driving cars or trucks aren't really an alternative to that either. Also: productivity in the office > productivity in a train >> productivity as the passenger in a car. I say that as someone who commutes about three hours a day by train and Uber.

ohitsdom 11y ago
Working inside of a self-driving car in the future will be much different from working inside a normal car. Current vehicles are primarily designed around the driving experience. When you don't need a steering wheel, gas/brake pedals, surrounding area visibility, a car's interior could be completely designed. No reason it shouldn't be on par with a private train car. It should certainly surpass regular train seating, since you don't have an aisle going through the center of the vehicle as a design constraint.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Getting rid of the driver doesn't get rid of physics. You can't make the car taller or wider or heavier without impacting fuel economy and stability. You can't get rid of intermittent stops for cross-traffic and pedestrian crossings. And you will never be able to match the smoothness of a heavy rail vehicle with a lightweight road vehicle.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

nerfhammer 11y ago

This route is mostly for freight, not commuting. I'm sure very few people tried to commute across this section of the Alps by car before this.

this_user 11y ago

Self-driving cars still need a way to pass that specific mountain range. Right now there is the old rail tunnel, the road tunnel and the mountain pass. The latter usually closes in autumn as do many others in the Alps. The road tunnel has a length of 16.9 km and two lanes. All of this creates a huge bottleneck. So unless someone invents a flying car, tunnels will still need to be built in regions like this.