5 ms·

No they won't, for the same reason that cities without public transport or minimal public transport have horrible traffic: the sheer density of people a bus, tr

No they won't, for the same reason that cities without public transport or minimal public transport have horrible traffic: the sheer density of people a bus, tram or light rail line can move far exceeds private vehicles with one or two people in them.

dantheman 8y ago
My question is can there be public self-driving buses, cars, mini-buses -- that stop less are more direct and communicate to manage traffic?
- lvh 8y ago
  Is there a metric where they’re not worse at what you’re suggesting than trains?
  - dantheman 8y ago
    Cost and flexibility. Buses are cheaper and more responsive to changing traffic patterns than trains. They are not as nice though. If for instance people in a given community want to start traveling to a different part of a city they either have to create new rail routes or people have to take long inconvenient trips.
    - CaptainZapp 8y ago
      > They are not as nice though. Ha! Apparently you haven't used Northern in the UK. Nice! (chuckle) I don't think it's really about nicety, but about capacity. A subway train can carry up to 1'000 passengers, depending on length and construction. You can have frequencies of a train every 90 seconds (example: line C in Prague, during rush hour). So you can transport up to 40'000 people per hour in each direction. Buses, while certainly much better than private vehicles, can never match that capacity. Alas, they're much cheaper and certainly more flexible.
    - sulam 8y ago
      The flip side is that they’re on the same roads as cars, which means exposed to the same congestion. And to the degree they get some people out of cars, they get other people into them.
    - ocschwar 8y ago
      > Buses are cheaper and more responsive to changing traffic patterns than trains True, but not very useful. The #1 Bus line in Boston takes a route that a trolley once took. And before that it was a horse drawn railcar. And before that it was a 10 seat omnibus carriage route. Same route for a mighty long time.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    For better or worse, trains have fixed routes and aren't very dynamic. I actually find it a bit surprising we don't see more of a formalized mini-bus system in the US given that it was pretty popular in some other countries even before GPS and apps. I guess UberPool serves a somewhat similar purpose. Perhaps there's not a lot of overlap between people who take Uber a lot and people who willingly step into a bus of any kind.
    - richardthered 8y ago
      In the US, the bus is generally seen as a "poor-person's" transport. Trains are considered middle-class transport.
  - rohit2412 8y ago
    Going doorstep to doorstep and probably lower time for the overall trip.
- cimmanom 8y ago
  They're far enough away that it doesn't make sense to put off purchasing normal buses (which could probably be retrofitted with self-driving tech anyway). And certainly that doesn't obviate the value of things like planning and beginning to carry people on routes; setting up stops (signs or shelters); and setting up bus lanes. And rail transit is a whole other beast. Do you know how much higher a volume of people can be carried by a subway than by even the most efficient bus route running buses bumper-to-bumper (let alone private vehicles)? (The unwillingness of politicians to acknowledge this is one of the reasons the L train shutdown in Brooklyn next year is going to be such a shit show.)
ufo 8y ago
Those pictures where they show car, bus, and bicycle density side by side really drive this point home: http://www.3fidi.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/60_people_bikes_cars_1_bus_greece.jpg http://www.3fidi.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/60_people_bi... http://www.citymetric.com/sites/default/files/images/car%20bike.jpg http://www.citymetric.com/sites/default/files/images/car%20b... And rail mass transit is even denser!
- brianwawok 8y ago
  That picture doesn't make sense, because cars don't drive that close together, nor do bikes ride that close together. Show 60 cars at 45 mph vs 60 bikers at 15 mph for a better density view.
  - a_imho 8y ago
    nor do bikes ride that close together In my experiece they absolutely do, but it is rare to see a big pack together.
  - throwaway76543 8y ago
    You'll also want to take into account the 300% increase in speed. Transportation isn't about static density it's about throughput. Objects moving 3x faster can be 1/3 as dense and have the same overall throughput.
    - jcranmer 8y ago
      Higher speed actually translates into less throughput. Cars take up more than just their physical space; there is also a gap that is needed to stop safely in time--and this gap grows according to the square of velocity. (You can argue that people don't usually leave sufficient space to stop, but I will point out that self-driving cars, which prompted this discussion, are going to be following those basic safety rules)
      - throwaway76543 8y ago
ghaff 8y ago
If autonomous vehicles arrive in the form that most people imagine, there will be a surge of traffic like you've never seen. Make something cheaper/easier and you get more of it. Furthermore, unless cities actually ban cars driving around without a passenger (which seems entirely possible), you'll have vast numbers of cars circling the block or heading out to the suburbs to park which their owners do their thing.
- throwaway76543 8y ago
  No one is yet sure whether traffic will increase or decrease. As you describe, people may buy self driving cars and use the self-driving feature to drive them more often. Wealthy folks and people in rural areas are almost certain to take this route. Others predict that people won't buy cars at all and will instead rent them from ride services, who in turn may promote ride sharing on an unprecedented scale. Poor folks, for whom a car is a major expense, are almost certain to take this route, as well as city dwellers. Personally, I think we may see traffic increase in some areas and substantially decrease in others. I suspect the largest source of traffic -- the commute -- will shrink considerably as networks of reasonably dense self-driving vanpools and small busses pop up.
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    You have five or six revolutions happening all at once. Self-driving isnt going to revolutionize car ownership. People own cars for irrational reasons (fashion etc). Nor will self-drive suddenly make carpooling cool. >> reasonably dense self-driving vanpools and small busses pop up. Utopia much?
    - ghaff 8y ago
      Alternatives probably will decrease ownership at the margins. For example, I know a couple in SF who don't own a car and that wouldn't have been nearly as practical before Zipcar and Uber. However, it's not like paying a driver $100/day to drive a minibus around to pick people up and drop them off is likely the reason that isn't a widespread service today. So someone would need to explain to me why self-driving changes that equation.

dantheman 8y ago

My question is can there be public self-driving buses, cars, mini-buses -- that stop less are more direct and communicate to manage traffic?

lvh 8y ago
Is there a metric where they’re not worse at what you’re suggesting than trains?
- dantheman 8y ago
  Cost and flexibility. Buses are cheaper and more responsive to changing traffic patterns than trains. They are not as nice though. If for instance people in a given community want to start traveling to a different part of a city they either have to create new rail routes or people have to take long inconvenient trips.
  - CaptainZapp 8y ago
    > They are not as nice though. Ha! Apparently you haven't used Northern in the UK. Nice! (chuckle) I don't think it's really about nicety, but about capacity. A subway train can carry up to 1'000 passengers, depending on length and construction. You can have frequencies of a train every 90 seconds (example: line C in Prague, during rush hour). So you can transport up to 40'000 people per hour in each direction. Buses, while certainly much better than private vehicles, can never match that capacity. Alas, they're much cheaper and certainly more flexible.
  - sulam 8y ago
    The flip side is that they’re on the same roads as cars, which means exposed to the same congestion. And to the degree they get some people out of cars, they get other people into them.
  - ocschwar 8y ago
    > Buses are cheaper and more responsive to changing traffic patterns than trains True, but not very useful. The #1 Bus line in Boston takes a route that a trolley once took. And before that it was a horse drawn railcar. And before that it was a 10 seat omnibus carriage route. Same route for a mighty long time.
- ghaff 8y ago
  For better or worse, trains have fixed routes and aren't very dynamic. I actually find it a bit surprising we don't see more of a formalized mini-bus system in the US given that it was pretty popular in some other countries even before GPS and apps. I guess UberPool serves a somewhat similar purpose. Perhaps there's not a lot of overlap between people who take Uber a lot and people who willingly step into a bus of any kind.
  - richardthered 8y ago
    In the US, the bus is generally seen as a "poor-person's" transport. Trains are considered middle-class transport.
- rohit2412 8y ago
  Going doorstep to doorstep and probably lower time for the overall trip.
cimmanom 8y ago
They're far enough away that it doesn't make sense to put off purchasing normal buses (which could probably be retrofitted with self-driving tech anyway). And certainly that doesn't obviate the value of things like planning and beginning to carry people on routes; setting up stops (signs or shelters); and setting up bus lanes. And rail transit is a whole other beast. Do you know how much higher a volume of people can be carried by a subway than by even the most efficient bus route running buses bumper-to-bumper (let alone private vehicles)? (The unwillingness of politicians to acknowledge this is one of the reasons the L train shutdown in Brooklyn next year is going to be such a shit show.)

ufo 8y ago

Those pictures where they show car, bus, and bicycle density side by side really drive this point home: http://www.3fidi.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/60_people_bikes_cars_1_bus_greece.jpg http://www.3fidi.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/60_people_bi... http://www.citymetric.com/sites/default/files/images/car%20bike.jpg http://www.citymetric.com/sites/default/files/images/car%20b... And rail mass transit is even denser!

brianwawok 8y ago
That picture doesn't make sense, because cars don't drive that close together, nor do bikes ride that close together. Show 60 cars at 45 mph vs 60 bikers at 15 mph for a better density view.
- a_imho 8y ago
  nor do bikes ride that close together In my experiece they absolutely do, but it is rare to see a big pack together.
- throwaway76543 8y ago
  You'll also want to take into account the 300% increase in speed. Transportation isn't about static density it's about throughput. Objects moving 3x faster can be 1/3 as dense and have the same overall throughput.
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    Higher speed actually translates into less throughput. Cars take up more than just their physical space; there is also a gap that is needed to stop safely in time--and this gap grows according to the square of velocity. (You can argue that people don't usually leave sufficient space to stop, but I will point out that self-driving cars, which prompted this discussion, are going to be following those basic safety rules)
    - throwaway76543 8y ago

ghaff 8y ago

If autonomous vehicles arrive in the form that most people imagine, there will be a surge of traffic like you've never seen. Make something cheaper/easier and you get more of it. Furthermore, unless cities actually ban cars driving around without a passenger (which seems entirely possible), you'll have vast numbers of cars circling the block or heading out to the suburbs to park which their owners do their thing.

throwaway76543 8y ago
No one is yet sure whether traffic will increase or decrease. As you describe, people may buy self driving cars and use the self-driving feature to drive them more often. Wealthy folks and people in rural areas are almost certain to take this route. Others predict that people won't buy cars at all and will instead rent them from ride services, who in turn may promote ride sharing on an unprecedented scale. Poor folks, for whom a car is a major expense, are almost certain to take this route, as well as city dwellers. Personally, I think we may see traffic increase in some areas and substantially decrease in others. I suspect the largest source of traffic -- the commute -- will shrink considerably as networks of reasonably dense self-driving vanpools and small busses pop up.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  You have five or six revolutions happening all at once. Self-driving isnt going to revolutionize car ownership. People own cars for irrational reasons (fashion etc). Nor will self-drive suddenly make carpooling cool. >> reasonably dense self-driving vanpools and small busses pop up. Utopia much?
  - ghaff 8y ago
    Alternatives probably will decrease ownership at the margins. For example, I know a couple in SF who don't own a car and that wouldn't have been nearly as practical before Zipcar and Uber. However, it's not like paying a driver $100/day to drive a minibus around to pick people up and drop them off is likely the reason that isn't a widespread service today. So someone would need to explain to me why self-driving changes that equation.