4 ms·

"Rush hour" is actually a pretty long distribution of time compared to the average length of a person's commute. I imagine just considering commuting, you could

by Arelius 10y ago

"Rush hour" is actually a pretty long distribution of time compared to the average length of a person's commute. I imagine just considering commuting, you could likely get close to half the amount of cars required with car-sharing, since you may get in at 7:30 and I may get in at 9:00. And you could provide good price incentives to convince people to mix up their commute times a bit. I already know people who push their times significantly to avoid traffic just due to the stress aspect.

clock_tower 10y ago
This seems as good a place as any to add the familiar lament: Why does no one build new commuter rail in this country? (This assumes that you're also from the US, for rhetorical convenience.)
- bad_hairpiece 10y ago
  I think it comes down to cost. Its only effective in very dense areas. For example, right now I'm on an established commuter rail line going from downtown to a suburb. I'm paying $12 round trip to travel 60 miles total. It's just barely cheaper than driving (not including parking expenses). At this point in time, I think it's wise to avoid laying costly new tracks with the dawn of driverless cars on the horizon.
  - clock_tower 10y ago
    I think there are physical reasons why driverless cars will never be as good as trains: they're rubber-on-asphalt instead of steel-on-steel, and you need a lot more engines, space, and transportation of dead weight per unit of people moved -- and they'll probably still need parking, too. As near as I can tell, driverless cars are horseless-carriage thinking... but trains have no element of novelty to them.
    - vectorjohn 10y ago
      Driverless cars can take you between train stations and destinations. No magical form of train will come to your house or go to your office. In fact, this is a perfect use case for driverless cars. The problem with trains everywhere is the wasted time not on the train and the million stops along the way.
      - vidarh 10y ago
        Ultimately I think driverless technology can revolutionarise high density public transport too: It gives us exactingly detailed information on what journeys people need. The dataset will be immensely valuable in allowing the companies that sit on them to first start doing quasi-bus services: Order a bunch of minibuses. During peak hours, offer an option: Wait for the next dedicated car to be free, or ride share with quicker availability and a discount. Limit detours strictly - there'll be plenty of "Follow road X and pick up 6 people on the way to station Y" type stretches that will make people happy (little time lost; feels efficient if there's not lots of turning off). Then you can see them partnering with bus providers to dynamically fill in during peak hours, or even bidding for bus franchises and proposing contract changes that would allow for more dynamic, demand-based scheduling. Ultimately this can feed into planning train type services - companies offering these type of drive share will be able to e.g. let people order "end to end" journeys of the type "pick me up at address 1, get me to address 2" where they show journey options that include rail when it makes sense. The key beying that if they do so, they will know the entire desired journey, and would be able to offer insight into the most efficient interchange locations or other changes to train services would be most desirable.
        vectorjohn 10y ago
        I really want to be in the business of writing the software that plans these things. The possibilities are crazy. Predicting where to have cars based on overall traffic flows, having cars ready for individuals who always leave at the same time. Think, a car is 30 seconds away every time you follow your routine. That's faster than getting into and starting your own car! Especially if you have a parking garage.
bluGill 10y ago
That is only true if the costs of the return trip is free: it isn't. When the car for the guy who arrives downtown at 7am goes back to the suburbs to get the guy who wants to arrive at 8am it is burning nearly as much fuel as it did getting in, and putting just as much wear on the car. The effect is shared cars are more expensive than just a car per person. (Note, this does not account for cost of parking which is a significant factor)

by Arelius 10y ago

clock_tower 10y ago

This seems as good a place as any to add the familiar lament: Why does no one build new commuter rail in this country? (This assumes that you're also from the US, for rhetorical convenience.)

bad_hairpiece 10y ago
I think it comes down to cost. Its only effective in very dense areas. For example, right now I'm on an established commuter rail line going from downtown to a suburb. I'm paying $12 round trip to travel 60 miles total. It's just barely cheaper than driving (not including parking expenses). At this point in time, I think it's wise to avoid laying costly new tracks with the dawn of driverless cars on the horizon.
- clock_tower 10y ago
  I think there are physical reasons why driverless cars will never be as good as trains: they're rubber-on-asphalt instead of steel-on-steel, and you need a lot more engines, space, and transportation of dead weight per unit of people moved -- and they'll probably still need parking, too. As near as I can tell, driverless cars are horseless-carriage thinking... but trains have no element of novelty to them.
  - vectorjohn 10y ago
    Driverless cars can take you between train stations and destinations. No magical form of train will come to your house or go to your office. In fact, this is a perfect use case for driverless cars. The problem with trains everywhere is the wasted time not on the train and the million stops along the way.
    - vidarh 10y ago
      Ultimately I think driverless technology can revolutionarise high density public transport too: It gives us exactingly detailed information on what journeys people need. The dataset will be immensely valuable in allowing the companies that sit on them to first start doing quasi-bus services: Order a bunch of minibuses. During peak hours, offer an option: Wait for the next dedicated car to be free, or ride share with quicker availability and a discount. Limit detours strictly - there'll be plenty of "Follow road X and pick up 6 people on the way to station Y" type stretches that will make people happy (little time lost; feels efficient if there's not lots of turning off). Then you can see them partnering with bus providers to dynamically fill in during peak hours, or even bidding for bus franchises and proposing contract changes that would allow for more dynamic, demand-based scheduling. Ultimately this can feed into planning train type services - companies offering these type of drive share will be able to e.g. let people order "end to end" journeys of the type "pick me up at address 1, get me to address 2" where they show journey options that include rail when it makes sense. The key beying that if they do so, they will know the entire desired journey, and would be able to offer insight into the most efficient interchange locations or other changes to train services would be most desirable.
      - vectorjohn 10y ago
        I really want to be in the business of writing the software that plans these things. The possibilities are crazy. Predicting where to have cars based on overall traffic flows, having cars ready for individuals who always leave at the same time. Think, a car is 30 seconds away every time you follow your routine. That's faster than getting into and starting your own car! Especially if you have a parking garage.

bluGill 10y ago

That is only true if the costs of the return trip is free: it isn't. When the car for the guy who arrives downtown at 7am goes back to the suburbs to get the guy who wants to arrive at 8am it is burning nearly as much fuel as it did getting in, and putting just as much wear on the car. The effect is shared cars are more expensive than just a car per person. (Note, this does not account for cost of parking which is a significant factor)