3 ms·

The difference between HSR and driverless EVs that can go from SF to LA is the former has existed for 50 years and the latter has literally never been demonstra

The difference between HSR and driverless EVs that can go from SF to LA is the former has existed for 50 years and the latter has literally never been demonstrated.

slg 8y ago
And another difference is that the development of a rail line requires billions in additional public funds (and also takes years if not decades to build) while the development of driverless cars is being paid for by private businesses. Wasn't your initial argument about saving money?
- ebikelaw 8y ago
  That characterization seems hilariously disconnected from the facts, which are that DARPA kick-started autonomous vehicles more than fifteen years ago with millions in government money, and that the vast majority of development of such vehicles has occurred on public roads, mostly in California. The parts that have been developed off-road have been done at an old Air Force base, and if you want to argue that facility is privately funded that will only make your argument sound even more dumb.
  - slg 8y ago
    You are right that I should have included a qualifier in that statement that it is not 100% funded by private business but that percentage is probably pretty close. Yes, DARPA got things moving but like you said their investment was in the millions. Google, Uber, Tesla, GM, etc have invested billions into the tech. Once again if this is a question of the effectiveness of the money spent, DARPA's investment in driverless tech greatly exceeds the potential of billions being spent on high speed rail.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > And another difference is that the development of a rail line requires billions in additional public funds (and also takes years if not decades to build) So does building the same capacity in roads. And, even moreso, so does building that plus the extra capacity required for the increased load required to handle on-demand driverless vehicles.
  - mmt 8y ago
    You're implying that there's a direct equivalence, but that's not really true. Although the parent comment said "rail line", since TFA is, specifically, about HSR, that's a unique rail line in an existing system, which has something of an all-or-nothing construction problem. Having it half finished won't reduce the train travel time between LA and the SFBA for anyone. Conversely, road capacity can be added incrementally, and, in many cases, when it is, it has an immediate effect for that section [1], providing relief as soon as the money and/or construction resources are available. In rural California, that's more likely to be months and fractions of a billion, not years and billions. The urban parts are slower and more expensive, but only proprotionally so (i.e. HSR is yet slower and even more expensive there, too). You haven't presented any evidence for your assumption that on-demand driverless vehicles would require extra capacity, especially down a long-haul corridor. At best, that's some very heavy speculation on the operating cost (dominated by tires, suspension, electricty, I'd expect) versus capital cost of keeping enough spares in each metro. [1] Yes, I'm aware that, at times, it can have a paradoxically negative effect on congestion, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen for capacity increases on what are essentially point-to-point corridors.

The difference between HSR and driverless EVs that can go from SF to LA is the former has existed for 50 years and the latter has literally never been demonstrated.

slg 8y ago

And another difference is that the development of a rail line requires billions in additional public funds (and also takes years if not decades to build) while the development of driverless cars is being paid for by private businesses. Wasn't your initial argument about saving money?

ebikelaw 8y ago
That characterization seems hilariously disconnected from the facts, which are that DARPA kick-started autonomous vehicles more than fifteen years ago with millions in government money, and that the vast majority of development of such vehicles has occurred on public roads, mostly in California. The parts that have been developed off-road have been done at an old Air Force base, and if you want to argue that facility is privately funded that will only make your argument sound even more dumb.
- slg 8y ago
  You are right that I should have included a qualifier in that statement that it is not 100% funded by private business but that percentage is probably pretty close. Yes, DARPA got things moving but like you said their investment was in the millions. Google, Uber, Tesla, GM, etc have invested billions into the tech. Once again if this is a question of the effectiveness of the money spent, DARPA's investment in driverless tech greatly exceeds the potential of billions being spent on high speed rail.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> And another difference is that the development of a rail line requires billions in additional public funds (and also takes years if not decades to build) So does building the same capacity in roads. And, even moreso, so does building that plus the extra capacity required for the increased load required to handle on-demand driverless vehicles.
- mmt 8y ago
  You're implying that there's a direct equivalence, but that's not really true. Although the parent comment said "rail line", since TFA is, specifically, about HSR, that's a unique rail line in an existing system, which has something of an all-or-nothing construction problem. Having it half finished won't reduce the train travel time between LA and the SFBA for anyone. Conversely, road capacity can be added incrementally, and, in many cases, when it is, it has an immediate effect for that section [1], providing relief as soon as the money and/or construction resources are available. In rural California, that's more likely to be months and fractions of a billion, not years and billions. The urban parts are slower and more expensive, but only proprotionally so (i.e. HSR is yet slower and even more expensive there, too). You haven't presented any evidence for your assumption that on-demand driverless vehicles would require extra capacity, especially down a long-haul corridor. At best, that's some very heavy speculation on the operating cost (dominated by tires, suspension, electricty, I'd expect) versus capital cost of keeping enough spares in each metro. [1] Yes, I'm aware that, at times, it can have a paradoxically negative effect on congestion, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen for capacity increases on what are essentially point-to-point corridors.