3 ms·

It'd be interesting to see how this compares in overall efficiency to properly implemented and comprehensive mass transit systems in a dense urban environment.

It'd be interesting to see how this compares in overall efficiency to properly implemented and comprehensive mass transit systems in a dense urban environment. The Tokyo metro alone (not including the JR trains, Tokyo Subway—a separate but compatible subway system, and other train transit systems which totals over 40 million daily users) handles 6.8 million passengers daily just in one city. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Greater_Tokyo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Greater_Tokyo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway It seems like if it scaled to the point where even there are no drivers, there's no way such a system can support a large number of users in a dense area at the same efficiency of a train. For Taxi's the issue isn't the cost of the driver, but actually the space and traffic constraints. Medallion supplies weren't constrained due to corruption and cronyism but to prevent the overpopulation of Taxis. Removing the driver may lower costs of Taxi's but there will still be a minimum floor to Taxi prices as you can't just infinitely supply a city with driverless cars. The area where I do see driverless taxis flourishing is suburban point-to-point transport. The current use case in SF where basically Uber and Lyfts have supplanted public transit is unique to the city, flush with money and short on public transit options.

ashleyn 9y ago
The immediate benefit I can envision is being on the highway more than the city. I regularly do a three hour drive between two states and automating the highway portion alone would be a godsend. I've actually considered getting a Volvo S90 for this purpose, but apparently the tech still isn't really where I want it to be, which is: get on the highway, press a button, don't touch anything until the final exit.
- matt_wulfeck 9y ago
  You need a Tesla!
- dx034 9y ago
  The Audi A8 appears to be the one with the most advanced system sold this year. From the reports I read, auto pilot functions are a step ahead of Tesla. The big difference is that they don't require you to pay direct attention as they define the system as a level 3 car.
  - gambiting 9y ago
    The problem is that most of the system is disabled in almost all markets while Audi waits for "regulatory approval".
sdrothrock 9y ago
Toei[0] has been experimenting with it; the Nippori-Toneri line from Nippori is a driverless monorail. The trip is fairly normal albeit jerky. Awkwardly enough, many of the stations do not have attendants either, so if you have a problem with the gate, you have to call back to Nippori and ask for help, which is a huge problem when you can't hear well enough... [0] Toei (都営) is the Tokyo Metropolitan Government-operated rail system (mostly subways and buses), not to be confused with Tokyo Metro, which is a private rail system (mostly subways), or JR, which operates mostly above-ground trains.
- so33 9y ago
  Driverless trains have been around for a while. The world's longest fully-automated driverless metro system, moving close to 500,000 people every day, exists in none other than Vancouver, Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver)
  - forgot-my-pw 9y ago
    I believe Dubai will beat this soon. They're currently at #2.
jessriedel 9y ago
> Medallion supplies weren't constrained due to corruption and cronyism but to prevent the overpopulation of Taxis. Removing the driver may lower costs of Taxi's but there will still be a minimum floor to Taxi prices as you can't just infinitely supply a city with driverless cars. This is maybe true in exceptional cities like NYC and Tokyo, but for the vast majority of US cities the fraction of cars on the road that are taxis is negligible. Autonomous service will almost certainly increase the average number of passengers per vehicle, thereby greatly improving the efficiency of the road system. (Obviously a better/cheaper system can induce demand, increasing overall congestion, but this is the case with all improvements to transportation and simply signals that more value is being delivered.) Yes, small cars will have difficulty matching the passenger volume of trains, but autonomous vans and buses will come much closer and with vastly more flexibility than trains.
johngalt 9y ago
Obviously trains win on raw throughput, regardless of who drives. If you expect to supplant trains with self driving cars, you are doing it wrong. The two technologies aren't in opposition. They are complimentary. If mass transit can handle 80% of my daily commute, that means I buy a car for commuting. Or if mass transit requires extensive planning, delays or limitations for unscheduled non-commuter travel; then I buy a car. If I have the car, then I might as well use it. With self driving cars in the mix, I know that whenever I want, I can put a destination in my phone and reliably gain transportation to anywhere inexpensively and immediately. Now that 80% mass transit solution is enough for commuting, because a car service is waiting to handle the last 20% as well as non-commuter travel. Ideally we will see coordination between services/transfers. I put one destination into my phone and it handles booking car -> train -> car -> destination without having to fiddle with buying transit passes or checking train schedules. Then you will see mass transit usage ramp up significantly. Edit: Imagine something like on-demand vans that do nothing but taxi people to the local bus/train/tram station. Or even do full point-point travel if the next train is >maxtime away.

ashleyn 9y ago

The immediate benefit I can envision is being on the highway more than the city. I regularly do a three hour drive between two states and automating the highway portion alone would be a godsend. I've actually considered getting a Volvo S90 for this purpose, but apparently the tech still isn't really where I want it to be, which is: get on the highway, press a button, don't touch anything until the final exit.

matt_wulfeck 9y ago
You need a Tesla!
dx034 9y ago
The Audi A8 appears to be the one with the most advanced system sold this year. From the reports I read, auto pilot functions are a step ahead of Tesla. The big difference is that they don't require you to pay direct attention as they define the system as a level 3 car.
- gambiting 9y ago
  The problem is that most of the system is disabled in almost all markets while Audi waits for "regulatory approval".

sdrothrock 9y ago

Toei[0] has been experimenting with it; the Nippori-Toneri line from Nippori is a driverless monorail. The trip is fairly normal albeit jerky. Awkwardly enough, many of the stations do not have attendants either, so if you have a problem with the gate, you have to call back to Nippori and ask for help, which is a huge problem when you can't hear well enough... [0] Toei (都営) is the Tokyo Metropolitan Government-operated rail system (mostly subways and buses), not to be confused with Tokyo Metro, which is a private rail system (mostly subways), or JR, which operates mostly above-ground trains.

so33 9y ago
Driverless trains have been around for a while. The world's longest fully-automated driverless metro system, moving close to 500,000 people every day, exists in none other than Vancouver, Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver)
- forgot-my-pw 9y ago
  I believe Dubai will beat this soon. They're currently at #2.

jessriedel 9y ago

> Medallion supplies weren't constrained due to corruption and cronyism but to prevent the overpopulation of Taxis. Removing the driver may lower costs of Taxi's but there will still be a minimum floor to Taxi prices as you can't just infinitely supply a city with driverless cars. This is maybe true in exceptional cities like NYC and Tokyo, but for the vast majority of US cities the fraction of cars on the road that are taxis is negligible. Autonomous service will almost certainly increase the average number of passengers per vehicle, thereby greatly improving the efficiency of the road system. (Obviously a better/cheaper system can induce demand, increasing overall congestion, but this is the case with all improvements to transportation and simply signals that more value is being delivered.) Yes, small cars will have difficulty matching the passenger volume of trains, but autonomous vans and buses will come much closer and with vastly more flexibility than trains.

johngalt 9y ago

Obviously trains win on raw throughput, regardless of who drives. If you expect to supplant trains with self driving cars, you are doing it wrong. The two technologies aren't in opposition. They are complimentary. If mass transit can handle 80% of my daily commute, that means I buy a car for commuting. Or if mass transit requires extensive planning, delays or limitations for unscheduled non-commuter travel; then I buy a car. If I have the car, then I might as well use it. With self driving cars in the mix, I know that whenever I want, I can put a destination in my phone and reliably gain transportation to anywhere inexpensively and immediately. Now that 80% mass transit solution is enough for commuting, because a car service is waiting to handle the last 20% as well as non-commuter travel. Ideally we will see coordination between services/transfers. I put one destination into my phone and it handles booking car -> train -> car -> destination without having to fiddle with buying transit passes or checking train schedules. Then you will see mass transit usage ramp up significantly. Edit: Imagine something like on-demand vans that do nothing but taxi people to the local bus/train/tram station. Or even do full point-point travel if the next train is >maxtime away.