5 ms·

You are still missing the point. Streets in megacities just don't have enough space for cars, automated or not. It's about efficient transportation not automati

by devy 9y ago

You are still missing the point. Streets in megacities just don't have enough space for cars, automated or not. It's about efficient transportation not automation. This is the same reason Elon Musk is so frustrated in LA traffic (just like London, NYC, Paris etc.) that he is doing The Boring Company to dug underground tunnels solve the transportation.

stcredzero 9y ago
My whole point is that automated EVs will free public thinking, enabling yet further changes to the public's thinking about how urban transport works. Please provide a quote where I say that automated cars are more efficient than other forms of public transport. (I only say that they will be more efficient than current cars, and you'll have to go to an entirely different day to find that one.) Also, please provide a quote that shows I consider automated EVs to be the endpoint in the evolution of transportation.
bryondowd 9y ago
Well, you could argue that automation could improve driving efficiency. Will full automation, you could potentially have more cars use the same amount of road space, since they have more immediate reaction times. Maybe not enough, but it's something. You may also eliminate a fair number of trips by one-car families who have to drive a spouse to work, then go home, then go back out again to pick them up and home again. Little things like that might add up. But yeah, overall, public transport would be preferable. Of course, automating buses would probably make for cheaper operating costs, and potentially make them more available. Also, the point about parking seemed to be overlooked. Being able to eliminate almost all the parking spaces in a built-up area would be a pretty huge boon. Vehicles could simply drive out to less cramped areas during low volume times when they aren't needed, or to recharge.
- devy 9y ago
  No matter how efficient the automated algorithm moves the cars around, the vehicles are still take spaces on the road, no? Given that streets spaces are more or less fixed (expanding road lanes are usually very costly long term projects in megacities), there is always a cap for how many cars can be run on the road. Hence walking/cycling/public transits make much more sense than cars.
  - bryondowd 9y ago
    There is a cap, but the question is whether that cap is high enough to meet demand. If demand stays the same, and you increase the number of cars that can fit on a given road at once by decreasing the space between them, you've potentially reduced congestion. Walkers, cyclists, and public transits also take up space, and there is a theoretical cap to how many a city can support. It's just that the cap is well above any reasonable expectation of demand, because those are all very efficient in terms of space. So, it's not really a difference in class, just a difference in degree. Cars don't necessarily have to be as space efficient as walking, just space efficient enough.
bogidon 9y ago
Automation is a piece of efficient transportation. However, I think driverless cars are not a solution by themselves. They bring efficiency gains in the form of reducing jams because they can drive closer, communicate with city infrastructure, etc. But these gains probably wouldn't offset the number of people who will all of the sudden gain access to a more convient (and probably cheaper, without regulation) method of transit, who will thus increase total car usage. It's going to be a challenge to reach transport homeostasis among driverless cars, driverless buses, subways, etc. Taxes or surge prices will probably need to be added to distribute people in an optimal way across multiple forms of transit so not to overload city infrastructure. I'm thinking prices are going to be driven more by physical limitations than individual operational costs (eg subway electricity usage). But this will need to be government regulated because private companies are not currently incentivized to minimze traffic (visible currently in ridesharing companies).

by devy 9y ago

stcredzero 9y ago

My whole point is that automated EVs will free public thinking, enabling yet further changes to the public's thinking about how urban transport works. Please provide a quote where I say that automated cars are more efficient than other forms of public transport. (I only say that they will be more efficient than current cars, and you'll have to go to an entirely different day to find that one.) Also, please provide a quote that shows I consider automated EVs to be the endpoint in the evolution of transportation.

bryondowd 9y ago

Well, you could argue that automation could improve driving efficiency. Will full automation, you could potentially have more cars use the same amount of road space, since they have more immediate reaction times. Maybe not enough, but it's something. You may also eliminate a fair number of trips by one-car families who have to drive a spouse to work, then go home, then go back out again to pick them up and home again. Little things like that might add up. But yeah, overall, public transport would be preferable. Of course, automating buses would probably make for cheaper operating costs, and potentially make them more available. Also, the point about parking seemed to be overlooked. Being able to eliminate almost all the parking spaces in a built-up area would be a pretty huge boon. Vehicles could simply drive out to less cramped areas during low volume times when they aren't needed, or to recharge.

devy 9y ago
No matter how efficient the automated algorithm moves the cars around, the vehicles are still take spaces on the road, no? Given that streets spaces are more or less fixed (expanding road lanes are usually very costly long term projects in megacities), there is always a cap for how many cars can be run on the road. Hence walking/cycling/public transits make much more sense than cars.
- bryondowd 9y ago
  There is a cap, but the question is whether that cap is high enough to meet demand. If demand stays the same, and you increase the number of cars that can fit on a given road at once by decreasing the space between them, you've potentially reduced congestion. Walkers, cyclists, and public transits also take up space, and there is a theoretical cap to how many a city can support. It's just that the cap is well above any reasonable expectation of demand, because those are all very efficient in terms of space. So, it's not really a difference in class, just a difference in degree. Cars don't necessarily have to be as space efficient as walking, just space efficient enough.

bogidon 9y ago

Automation is a piece of efficient transportation. However, I think driverless cars are not a solution by themselves. They bring efficiency gains in the form of reducing jams because they can drive closer, communicate with city infrastructure, etc. But these gains probably wouldn't offset the number of people who will all of the sudden gain access to a more convient (and probably cheaper, without regulation) method of transit, who will thus increase total car usage. It's going to be a challenge to reach transport homeostasis among driverless cars, driverless buses, subways, etc. Taxes or surge prices will probably need to be added to distribute people in an optimal way across multiple forms of transit so not to overload city infrastructure. I'm thinking prices are going to be driven more by physical limitations than individual operational costs (eg subway electricity usage). But this will need to be government regulated because private companies are not currently incentivized to minimze traffic (visible currently in ridesharing companies).