5 ms·

I imagine everything is a lot more expensive now. More people, right of ways, etc Didn’t California want to build its high-speed rail in the 1970s? Americans

I imagine everything is a lot more expensive now. More people, right of ways, etc Didn’t California want to build its high-speed rail in the 1970s? Americans chose to pay later for mass transit. Now it’ll cost us a fortune.

oconnor663 8y ago
Maybe we'll get lucky and perfectly safe self driving cars will solve the problem once and for all in 20 years?
- statguy 8y ago
  A Subway line will always be an order of magnitude more efficient than a system where each individual is in a separate vehicle, self driving or not.
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    Depends on utilization and capacity needs. A subway is an incredibly much more inefficient use of capital if it only needs to handle a few passengers an hour between fixed points, let alone non fixed ones.
    - statguy 8y ago
      Sure, it dosen't make sense to build subway lines to replace all roads/highways. However, as bobthepanda's comment says, once the demand on a route exceeds a threshold, mass transit wins by a mile.
      - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
        Yes, but parent used an unqualified “always” without any room for additional context.
- s0rce 8y ago
  I can't see even self-driving cars coming close to the transportation efficiency of light/heavy rail. You just can't fit people close together if each person is in big metal box. Also, self-driving cars would likely increase the amount of time people would tolerate in a vehicle as you can do other things so more people would be willing to sit in traffic and commute times might not even improve.
  - SomewhatLikely 8y ago
    But what about all the empty track between trains? When you consider that, it starts to level out. I'd be very interested in actual numbers though. Edit: Discussion here using quick estimates seems to show rail still wins: https://alankandel.scienceblog.com/2014/01/11/rails-vs-roads-for-value-utilization-emissions-savings-difference-like-night-and-day/ https://alankandel.scienceblog.com/2014/01/11/rails-vs-roads...
    - adrianN 8y ago
      How many lanes of self driving cars cars do you think it takes to replace a subway line at full capacity? More than you think. See London's Victoria line for reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASKof4CR2SE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASKof4CR2SE Trains run every ninety seconds or so and are packed during rush hour.
- melling 8y ago
  Will these cars go 100-300 mph? At some point, shouldn’t maglev trains and subways be practical? https://www.businesstoday.in/current/world/china-successfully-tests-maglev-train-prototype-with-160kmph-top-speed/story/277580.html https://www.businesstoday.in/current/world/china-successfull...
  - stephengillie 8y ago
    Trains run 25mph in most cities. Like another poster commented, Link Light Rail takes about 2x as long as driving.
    - prolikewh0a 8y ago
      Tukwila -> Westlake (11 stops? I think?) takes around 45-50 minutes. My bus from the same area takes ~20 minutes to the same stop. The bus doesn't run on weekends, so I have to take the light rail and it's so slow.
      - stephengillie 8y ago
        Via I-5, this commute[0] is 13.6 miles. Via SR-99, it's 13.1 miles. In Friday morning traffic, the route can take 30-50 minutes by car. On Saturday nights, it can take 15 minutes. If you can get 40 MPG and pay $3.40 per gallon, this could cost just $1.27 in gasoline, instead of $2.50 to a train or bus company. [0]https://goo.gl/maps/iyZEKttcBFo https://goo.gl/maps/iyZEKttcBFo Edit: Multiply not divide. ;)
    - adrianN 8y ago
      Trains in Berlin can go 80km/h.
    - melling 8y ago
      Yes, I already know that. It’s completely irrelevant to my comment. Why did you bring it up? Maglev trains won’t be running at 25 mph.
- bryanlarsen 8y ago
  Self driving will have an impact like Uber: slightly decreasing ownership rates but massively increasing traffic.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  Self driving cars are limited by capacity; cars today have an average occupancy hovering around one and a half. Because of this a free-flowing, 55MPH highway lane has capacity for about 2-3K per hour. To give those numbers some context, when Seattle's Link Light Rail builds out ST2 in 2021, capacity will be 14.4K per hour; and this is running a ordinary schedule of every four minutes. The New York City Subway at its busiest scheduled section runs much longer trains every two minutes, at a capacity of 75K per hour. That's with 1930's signalling - with modern signalling, they could run trains every 90 seconds, for a capacity of 100k per hour. And that's just on two tracks. Cars are really space inefficient because you need an engine and a fuel tank for a small group of people. Trains and buses have the advantage of fitting more seats in the same area, and then having people stand on top of that.
  - djrogers 8y ago
    > That's with 1930's signalling - with modern signalling, they could run trains every 90 seconds, for a capacity of 100k per hour. And that's just on two tracks. That's an extremely optimistic number - running a train every 90 seconds would leave people basically no time to get on or off the train, and ingress/egress gets harder as platforms get more crowded.
    - bobthepanda 8y ago
      90s is achieved on many subway lines today. Ingress/egress is mostly a function of getting the people farthest from the doors out the train and packing people in, but there are subway lines that effectively manage this at 90s. Paris Metro Lines 1 and 14 already run at this headway. That being said, it is possible for platforms to become so congested that they actually start impacting headways; the Lexington Av Line (4/5/6) in New York had this issue until recently because it was carrying more than the daily riderships of Chicago, Boston, and San Francisco's entire systems.
bigdubs 8y ago
Well, and the way things trend it'll just be more expensive in the future, so just do it now.
qubax 8y ago
There is always talk of mass transit when gas prices momentarily increase. Then we forget about it once gas prices drop. The same thing with small economical cars with great mileage. Remember a few years ago when gas prices rose above $4 and every pundit was saying that gas guzzling trucks and SUVs were a thing of the past. Want to guess what the the best selling vehicles are today? They aren't small sedans. They are large trucks. https://focus2move.com/usa-best-selling-cars/ https://focus2move.com/usa-best-selling-cars/ > Americans chose to pay later for mass transit. Now it’ll cost us a fortune. No. We chose cars. And we will continue to choose cars over mass transit. It will take something drastic to change american culture and our lifestyle.
- spamizbad 8y ago
  > No. We chose cars. And we will continue to choose cars over mass transit. It will take something drastic to change american culture and our lifestyle. You can't generalize this to all Americans, as it largely seems to be localized to the Baby Boomer generation, who were responsible for roughly 2/3rds of automobile sales in 2011. There's an Autoweek article[1] that tries to spin this positively, but it basically says that Millennials and Gen-Z are responsible for just 30% of vehicle sales in 2017. Essentially, people ages 18-35 are purchasing less than a third of the vehicles, despite being at a position in their lives where a demand should be at its highest. Complicating matters, it looks like the market research pointing to millennials essentially purchasing them merely out of pragmatic necessity, to drive to work or cart families around because there are no other options: Makes sense, because that's how the Baby Boomers shaped most of our metro areas. They're less car "owners" and more car hostages. As boomers die off, their economic and political power will wane and we're going to see some pretty dramatic changes to urban and suburban landscapes. [1] https://autoweek.com/article/car-news/bucking-trends-millenials-fastest-growing-segment-vehicle-buyers https://autoweek.com/article/car-news/bucking-trends-milleni...
  - qubax 8y ago
    > You can't generalize this to all Americans, as it largely seems to be localized to the Baby Boomer generation, who were responsible for roughly 2/3rds of automobile sales in 2011. You mean the largest and wealthiest demographic bought the most cars during one of the worst economic recessions where a significant portion of the younger generation had to move back with their parents just to survive? > There's an Autoweek article[1] that tries to spin this positively, but it basically says that Millennials and Gen-Z are responsible for just 30% of vehicle sales in 2017. They aren't "spinning" anything. They are just offering data and expectations. As the economy improves and as the younger generation get on better financial footing and as they get older, they'll buy more cars. What's so shocking about that? Even you acknowledge that they went from a 20% market share in 2011 ( a major recession era ) to 30% today. And as millenials get wealthier and as gen-z gets older, common sense and data says that trend will increase. > Essentially, people ages 18-35 are purchasing less than a third of the vehicles, despite being at a position in their lives where a demand should be at its highest. How is 18-35 at the age where demand is the highest? You think kids in college need cars? > Complicating matters, it looks like the market research pointing to millennials essentially purchasing them merely out of pragmatic necessity, to drive to work or cart families around because there are no other options: As opposed to buying them to hang on your wall as decoration? > As boomers die off, their economic and political power will wane and we're going to see some pretty dramatic changes to urban and suburban landscapes. In some matters sure. But certainly not when it comes to cars and most definitely not in the suburban landscape. Even in urban landscapes, like NYC metro area with great public transportation, people still love cars. Come check out the yearly auto show at javits center.

oconnor663 8y ago

Maybe we'll get lucky and perfectly safe self driving cars will solve the problem once and for all in 20 years?

statguy 8y ago
A Subway line will always be an order of magnitude more efficient than a system where each individual is in a separate vehicle, self driving or not.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  Depends on utilization and capacity needs. A subway is an incredibly much more inefficient use of capital if it only needs to handle a few passengers an hour between fixed points, let alone non fixed ones.
  - statguy 8y ago
    Sure, it dosen't make sense to build subway lines to replace all roads/highways. However, as bobthepanda's comment says, once the demand on a route exceeds a threshold, mass transit wins by a mile.
    - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
      Yes, but parent used an unqualified “always” without any room for additional context.
s0rce 8y ago
I can't see even self-driving cars coming close to the transportation efficiency of light/heavy rail. You just can't fit people close together if each person is in big metal box. Also, self-driving cars would likely increase the amount of time people would tolerate in a vehicle as you can do other things so more people would be willing to sit in traffic and commute times might not even improve.
- SomewhatLikely 8y ago
  But what about all the empty track between trains? When you consider that, it starts to level out. I'd be very interested in actual numbers though. Edit: Discussion here using quick estimates seems to show rail still wins: https://alankandel.scienceblog.com/2014/01/11/rails-vs-roads-for-value-utilization-emissions-savings-difference-like-night-and-day/ https://alankandel.scienceblog.com/2014/01/11/rails-vs-roads...
  - adrianN 8y ago
    How many lanes of self driving cars cars do you think it takes to replace a subway line at full capacity? More than you think. See London's Victoria line for reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASKof4CR2SE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASKof4CR2SE Trains run every ninety seconds or so and are packed during rush hour.
melling 8y ago
Will these cars go 100-300 mph? At some point, shouldn’t maglev trains and subways be practical? https://www.businesstoday.in/current/world/china-successfully-tests-maglev-train-prototype-with-160kmph-top-speed/story/277580.html https://www.businesstoday.in/current/world/china-successfull...
- stephengillie 8y ago
  Trains run 25mph in most cities. Like another poster commented, Link Light Rail takes about 2x as long as driving.
  - prolikewh0a 8y ago
    Tukwila -> Westlake (11 stops? I think?) takes around 45-50 minutes. My bus from the same area takes ~20 minutes to the same stop. The bus doesn't run on weekends, so I have to take the light rail and it's so slow.
    - stephengillie 8y ago
      Via I-5, this commute[0] is 13.6 miles. Via SR-99, it's 13.1 miles. In Friday morning traffic, the route can take 30-50 minutes by car. On Saturday nights, it can take 15 minutes. If you can get 40 MPG and pay $3.40 per gallon, this could cost just $1.27 in gasoline, instead of $2.50 to a train or bus company. [0]https://goo.gl/maps/iyZEKttcBFo https://goo.gl/maps/iyZEKttcBFo Edit: Multiply not divide. ;)
  - adrianN 8y ago
    Trains in Berlin can go 80km/h.
  - melling 8y ago
    Yes, I already know that. It’s completely irrelevant to my comment. Why did you bring it up? Maglev trains won’t be running at 25 mph.
bryanlarsen 8y ago
Self driving will have an impact like Uber: slightly decreasing ownership rates but massively increasing traffic.
bobthepanda 8y ago
Self driving cars are limited by capacity; cars today have an average occupancy hovering around one and a half. Because of this a free-flowing, 55MPH highway lane has capacity for about 2-3K per hour. To give those numbers some context, when Seattle's Link Light Rail builds out ST2 in 2021, capacity will be 14.4K per hour; and this is running a ordinary schedule of every four minutes. The New York City Subway at its busiest scheduled section runs much longer trains every two minutes, at a capacity of 75K per hour. That's with 1930's signalling - with modern signalling, they could run trains every 90 seconds, for a capacity of 100k per hour. And that's just on two tracks. Cars are really space inefficient because you need an engine and a fuel tank for a small group of people. Trains and buses have the advantage of fitting more seats in the same area, and then having people stand on top of that.
- djrogers 8y ago
  > That's with 1930's signalling - with modern signalling, they could run trains every 90 seconds, for a capacity of 100k per hour. And that's just on two tracks. That's an extremely optimistic number - running a train every 90 seconds would leave people basically no time to get on or off the train, and ingress/egress gets harder as platforms get more crowded.
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    90s is achieved on many subway lines today. Ingress/egress is mostly a function of getting the people farthest from the doors out the train and packing people in, but there are subway lines that effectively manage this at 90s. Paris Metro Lines 1 and 14 already run at this headway. That being said, it is possible for platforms to become so congested that they actually start impacting headways; the Lexington Av Line (4/5/6) in New York had this issue until recently because it was carrying more than the daily riderships of Chicago, Boston, and San Francisco's entire systems.

bigdubs 8y ago

Well, and the way things trend it'll just be more expensive in the future, so just do it now.

qubax 8y ago

There is always talk of mass transit when gas prices momentarily increase. Then we forget about it once gas prices drop. The same thing with small economical cars with great mileage. Remember a few years ago when gas prices rose above $4 and every pundit was saying that gas guzzling trucks and SUVs were a thing of the past. Want to guess what the the best selling vehicles are today? They aren't small sedans. They are large trucks. https://focus2move.com/usa-best-selling-cars/ https://focus2move.com/usa-best-selling-cars/ > Americans chose to pay later for mass transit. Now it’ll cost us a fortune. No. We chose cars. And we will continue to choose cars over mass transit. It will take something drastic to change american culture and our lifestyle.

spamizbad 8y ago
> No. We chose cars. And we will continue to choose cars over mass transit. It will take something drastic to change american culture and our lifestyle. You can't generalize this to all Americans, as it largely seems to be localized to the Baby Boomer generation, who were responsible for roughly 2/3rds of automobile sales in 2011. There's an Autoweek article[1] that tries to spin this positively, but it basically says that Millennials and Gen-Z are responsible for just 30% of vehicle sales in 2017. Essentially, people ages 18-35 are purchasing less than a third of the vehicles, despite being at a position in their lives where a demand should be at its highest. Complicating matters, it looks like the market research pointing to millennials essentially purchasing them merely out of pragmatic necessity, to drive to work or cart families around because there are no other options: Makes sense, because that's how the Baby Boomers shaped most of our metro areas. They're less car "owners" and more car hostages. As boomers die off, their economic and political power will wane and we're going to see some pretty dramatic changes to urban and suburban landscapes. [1] https://autoweek.com/article/car-news/bucking-trends-millenials-fastest-growing-segment-vehicle-buyers https://autoweek.com/article/car-news/bucking-trends-milleni...
- qubax 8y ago
  > You can't generalize this to all Americans, as it largely seems to be localized to the Baby Boomer generation, who were responsible for roughly 2/3rds of automobile sales in 2011. You mean the largest and wealthiest demographic bought the most cars during one of the worst economic recessions where a significant portion of the younger generation had to move back with their parents just to survive? > There's an Autoweek article[1] that tries to spin this positively, but it basically says that Millennials and Gen-Z are responsible for just 30% of vehicle sales in 2017. They aren't "spinning" anything. They are just offering data and expectations. As the economy improves and as the younger generation get on better financial footing and as they get older, they'll buy more cars. What's so shocking about that? Even you acknowledge that they went from a 20% market share in 2011 ( a major recession era ) to 30% today. And as millenials get wealthier and as gen-z gets older, common sense and data says that trend will increase. > Essentially, people ages 18-35 are purchasing less than a third of the vehicles, despite being at a position in their lives where a demand should be at its highest. How is 18-35 at the age where demand is the highest? You think kids in college need cars? > Complicating matters, it looks like the market research pointing to millennials essentially purchasing them merely out of pragmatic necessity, to drive to work or cart families around because there are no other options: As opposed to buying them to hang on your wall as decoration? > As boomers die off, their economic and political power will wane and we're going to see some pretty dramatic changes to urban and suburban landscapes. In some matters sure. But certainly not when it comes to cars and most definitely not in the suburban landscape. Even in urban landscapes, like NYC metro area with great public transportation, people still love cars. Come check out the yearly auto show at javits center.