3 ms·
I thought it was a very good article, but disliked the comparison to the sad state of US trains. The author knew he was being a little disingenuous with his co
by Larrikin 10y ago
I thought it was a very good article, but disliked the comparison to the sad state of US trains.
The author knew he was being a little disingenuous with his comparisons to the sad state of US infrastructure, which is why he was careful to preface every reference to poorly automated train systems with the US. There are a number of automated systems worldwide that work pretty well. The Yurikamome was the first line that came to mind. Its not an extremely packed line, but having safety systems similar, like door gates, works very well. Automating a more used line would of course be more difficult, but not impossible.
Aggressive door closing seems to work pretty well in taming crowds. It might take an education period in the US, but once people realize holding a door won't allow you on the train and that it will only allow you to remove a trapped limb, people will be less inclined to do it.
- jholman 10y agoHaha, yeah. Entirely agreed. There is, within 15 miles of the continental United States, a Level 4 automated train, that has been running for over 30 years, with 50 miles of track, and 300,000 passengers per day. And it works great. It's off-the-shelf technology backed by a moderately sizable 70-year-old company, so you can just go out and order a system like this yourself next year, if you want to (and you have a few billion dollars). That doesn't solve any of the self-driving car problems in the article, so it's totally a side point, but Level 4 trains are a solved problem, for over 30 years.