9 ms·

Autonomous cars are a very difficult problem, more than I think most people anticipate. There's been a lot of tax breaks/money that goes into these programs too

Autonomous cars are a very difficult problem, more than I think most people anticipate. There's been a lot of tax breaks/money that goes into these programs too, and that's the tragic thing, since that funding should be going to known solutions: public transportation (trains, trams and express buses). Even if you had a full-autonomous only Interstate where each car could be fully loaded and ride bumper-bumper at over 100kph, it wouldn't even begin reach the carrying capacity of currently existing fully autonomous subways systems like those in Singapore. https://penguindreams.org/blog/self-driving-cars-will-not-solve-the-transportation-problem/ https://penguindreams.org/blog/self-driving-cars-will-not-so... These driverless cars would be great in Europe where they can solve the last leg problems in countries that already have strong public transport infrastructure. In places like America, the existing infrastructure has a long way to go before autonomous cars won't lead to the same gridlock as normal cars .. and an even longer way to go before they're ready for mass consumption.

triviatise 8y ago
self driving (they dont even need to be self driving just ride share algorithm powered) shuttles are the future of public transport The systems could be ride share type shuttles that can pick you up at your location and drop you off at your destination. You make the request in the app and the shuttle picks people up in a location. They can even drop you off for a transfer with other modes, other shuttles etc. The shuttle that picks you up doesnt have to be the shuttle that drops you off. Shuttles like these will greatly reduce traffic and can also handle spikes in demand unlike current mass transit.
rootusrootus 8y ago
Everywhere and everyone is different, obviously, but I would love to see autonomous electric vehicles become our future. I really don't care for public transportation, I find it uncomfortable in many ways, and I don't see any way that it will ever not be about half the speed of a private point-to-point transport. So a highway filled with self driving cars zipping along bumper to bumper may not technically be able to carry as much as a fully loaded subway train, but it's so much more useful. Take away the casualties and pollution, and it's as close to perfect as we are likely to get.
- codyb 8y ago
  Can you explain to me how it's more useful than a train that carries more people with less energy? Because, to me, it sounds like you just don't want to be uncomfortable, and that's fine, nobody does, but it doesn't make something more useful.
  - lgas 8y ago
    Being more comfortable is useful to me.
    - enraged_camel 8y ago
      Trains can be extremely comfortable, actually. You can have things like food/drink service on them, not to mention WiFi.
      - sverige 8y ago
        The lack of comfort people refer to usually involves the other passengers, not the amenities. But everyone knows you're not supposed to talk specifically about that aspect of public transportation.
        rootusrootus 8y ago
        Ha, I will! I once had a guy behind me on the train whip out his penis and pee on the floor. Looked right at me in the reflection of the window as he did it. He wasn't even crazy, either, as far as I could tell, just antisocial. And yes, before you say it, that isn't an everyday occurrence. But jackasses refusing to take their bag off the seat so you can sit down is. As are people who can't be bothered to take a shower, or think that cologne will make up for it. The list goes on. Many people are just unpleasant to be around, and I don't see any problem with that observation. For me, public transit comfort comes down to a couple things. First, the hard plastic seats make my butt hurt, and standing makes my left foot ache. Sorry, I'm getting old :). Second, the 2x time it takes to get anywhere means I'm on that terrible seat for even longer. And third, because yes, it's absolutely true, I find that perhaps one in ten people is unpleasant enough that I want to be out of visual and/or aromatic range.
illumin8 8y ago
> There's been a lot of tax breaks/money that goes into these programs too, and that's the tragic thing, since that funding should be going to known solutions: public transportation (trains, trams and express buses). Citation needed. > Even if you had a full-autonomous only Interstate where each car could be fully loaded and ride bumper-bumper at over 100kph, it wouldn't even begin reach the carrying capacity of currently existing fully autonomous subways systems like those in Singapore. Citation needed.
- A2017U1 8y ago
  From the comment guidelines: > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. Handling 30k passengers per hour is manageable for most rail lines around the world. Torontos Bloor line does 500,000 daily. Similarly highways are constrained to their own maximums per lane, and counterintuitively raising the speed limit doesn't help. 1500-1700 vehicles per hour is a fair estimate. http://buckholztraffic.com/UNF/Data%20Analysis/2%20Lane%20Highway%20Notes.htm http://buckholztraffic.com/UNF/Data%20Analysis/2%20Lane%20Hi...
  - illumin8 8y ago
    He posted unsubstantiated claims about tax breaks (I'd like to learn where there are tax breaks for autonomous vehicles) and a claim about trains having more throughput than an interstate with cars fully loaded moving 100kph bumper to bumper. Asking for citations might be a shallow dismissal, but stating hypotheses without facts to substantiate them is also shallow.
    - dang 8y ago
      That's true, but taking the thread further in the wrong direction only makes it worse. There are other ways to ask for more information, that open discussion up rather than stiffening into confrontation. Please post in that spirit instead.
    - djsumdog 8y ago
      Did you click on the link? It goes the the article I wrote, which has a ton of sources at the bottom.
koala_man 8y ago
Autonomous subways are great for places like Singapore, but there are quite a lot of places where throughput is not an issue and where doubling the mass transit subsidies means hiring a second bus driver so the line can run every two hours instead of every four.
- mcny 8y ago
  Someone mentioned in HN that a bus every four minutes is a very expensive subway train. I think I agree. I think this is the situation for most New York MTA buses at peak hour. These buses should be in a dedicated track on a subway, not sharing lanes with traffic.
dominotw 8y ago
Singapore? Tokyo? America is different is so many ways I don't even know where to begin.
- djsumdog 8y ago
  America had more commuter/passenger rail in the 1940/50s than Europe has today. Russia and China are more spread apart and they both have more high speed real than American has. Every Australian capitol except Darwin/Hobart and ACT have commuter train systems, and they have the same land mass as the US with 1/6 of the people. I hate hearing people use the argument you used, because it's just straight up wrong. If American built rail, you'd be surprised to see how quickly development would flock to build around it. American spread out like it did because the nation moved to Interstates.
  - dominotw 8y ago
    > Russia and China are more spread apart and they both have more high speed real than American has. How do you explain car craze in china. Its the biggest car market in the world and one thats growing rapidly. So exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting would happen is happening in china. China comparisons makes no sense. Car ownership is not accessible to most chinese they have no option but to build a rail system. It is not because ppl prefer travelling in trains(vs cars) its because they have no other option. You have cause and effect reversed. If everyone in china can afford a car like USA they would prefer American interstate system. Who would possibly want to live in cramped quarters built around rail system when you can live in suburban mansion with basement home theatre system.
    - mcny 8y ago
      > Who would possibly want to live in cramped quarters built around rail system when you can live in suburban mansion with basement home theatre system. Sorry if I sound selfish but it is really scary to think of 1.5 Billion people doing what the 330 million US Americans do. At some point, I'd argue there is no such thing as sovereignty. I, a neighbor, have a right to not suffocate to death more than you have a right to burn your house to the ground (or I'll take it by force even if I don't have that right).
kccqzy 8y ago
> fully autonomous subways systems like those in Singapore Nitpick, but in Singapore only three subway lines are fully autonomous (CC, DT, NE). The remaining two are not (EW, NS) because they were built with older technologies.
chrismcb 8y ago
Most of the money spent on autonomous autos is being spent on research, while most of the money spent on public transportation solves a select few routes. Solving auto driving essentially solves it everywhere. Here in Seattle we are spending over 50 billion to put in a couple of light rails, and it won't even be close to being enough public transportation. The money the government is putting in self driving pales in comparison to what is being put into public transportation. Even with public transportation, you still need self driving cars. Look at nyc or London, hey both have great subay systems and yet have some of the worst traffic. Not to mention self driving technologies can help public transportation, freight deliveries, as well as others.
- aikinai 8y ago
  New York and London have okay subways. Tokyo has a great subway and incredibly light traffic.
  - m_mueller 8y ago
    I’d argue that Tokyo’s PT is so good that the last mile is mostly your feet if you’re able bodied. Autonomous cars is mostly something that makes sense in less densely populated places IMO. Which does include most of the US, but frankly I doubt car sharing will make a big impact there soon.
- djsumdog 8y ago
  Seattle's ST3 is a massive project and it will solve a lot of problems! The extension goes all the way to the Redmond tech center and the other extension will eventually make it to Everett, meaning there will finally be a train that runs all the time instead of just a few times per day M-F and for select sport events. There are so many people who cannot afford housing anywhere near Seattle and they are the runs who run your Wal-greens and Starbucks. They have to sit in traffic on I-5 or wait for express buses. This will be a big step up and it's only a start. Seattle needed ST3 a decade ago, and it's going to have a way bigger impact that you think.
oh_sigh 8y ago
> Even if you had a full-autonomous only Interstate where each car could be fully loaded and ride bumper-bumper at over 100kph, it wouldn't even begin reach the carrying capacity of currently existing fully autonomous subways systems like those in Singapore. This is a poor comparison because cars on highways don't serve at all the same needs as subways in one of the densely populated areas in the world. I'm sure I could construct comparisons where airplanes fail, but a fleet of bicycles succeed(or vice versa), but that doesn't mean that humanity should pick one or the other as the optimal solution.
vilhelm_s 8y ago
A full train on the Singapore North East Line can carry 1920 passengers (at 6 passengers/m^2), and at rush hour it runs 1 train per 2 or 3 minutes, so it carries 16 passengers/second. A fully loaded Toyota Corolla carries five people and is 4.65 meters long, so at 100 km/h each lane of the highway would carry 30 passengers/second. So the highway would carry several times more passengers than the subway. Even though each train can pack more passengers per square meter than a car, it's not possible to run the trains back-to-back at 100 km/h, because they need to stop to let passengers off and on. At rush hour, the rate of the subway system is basically limited by how quickly people can flow from the platform into the train.
- xvedejas 8y ago
  A fully-utilized freeway in the way you describe is one that cars cannot easily get on/off of (where is the space for them?). They will have to wait at the on-ramp to be scheduled into a slot. Because of this, the average throughput of a highway necessarily is less than the max-speed max-packed scenario, since the bottleneck is actually the on/off-ramps and feeder streets.
  - vilhelm_s 8y ago
    Of course, but the comment I replied to says that the max-speed max-packed scenario has much less throughput than a subway. That's completely wrong, and it's important to point out that it's wrong in order to see where the actual bottlenecks are (at the on/off ramps and feeder streets).
- Johnny555 8y ago
  You're ignoring space between cars, even with full automation you can't have a highway full of cars with no space between them, else there'd be no room for cars to merge on/off the freeway, and any traffic disruption would cause an immediate traffic back-up. Add one car length of distance and that puts the train in the same ballpark as the freeway lane. (I'll ignore the challenge of filling the Corolla with 5 people - I don't want to be the guy stuck in the middle seat) Though the problem isn't just throughput of the freeway, but also a question of where all of those cars are going to go when they get to the destination -- generally the commute traffic is going the same place at the same time. Self driving cars may not need a parking space, but if they are going to drop off passengers and then drive away to park somewhere outside of the city center, that causes even more city traffic. because they need to stop to let passengers off and on. At rush hour, the rate of the subway system is basically limited by how quickly people can flow from the platform into the train. That's why large train stations have multiple tracks.

triviatise 8y ago

self driving (they dont even need to be self driving just ride share algorithm powered) shuttles are the future of public transport The systems could be ride share type shuttles that can pick you up at your location and drop you off at your destination. You make the request in the app and the shuttle picks people up in a location. They can even drop you off for a transfer with other modes, other shuttles etc. The shuttle that picks you up doesnt have to be the shuttle that drops you off. Shuttles like these will greatly reduce traffic and can also handle spikes in demand unlike current mass transit.

rootusrootus 8y ago

Everywhere and everyone is different, obviously, but I would love to see autonomous electric vehicles become our future. I really don't care for public transportation, I find it uncomfortable in many ways, and I don't see any way that it will ever not be about half the speed of a private point-to-point transport. So a highway filled with self driving cars zipping along bumper to bumper may not technically be able to carry as much as a fully loaded subway train, but it's so much more useful. Take away the casualties and pollution, and it's as close to perfect as we are likely to get.

codyb 8y ago
Can you explain to me how it's more useful than a train that carries more people with less energy? Because, to me, it sounds like you just don't want to be uncomfortable, and that's fine, nobody does, but it doesn't make something more useful.
- lgas 8y ago
  Being more comfortable is useful to me.
  - enraged_camel 8y ago
    Trains can be extremely comfortable, actually. You can have things like food/drink service on them, not to mention WiFi.
    - sverige 8y ago
      The lack of comfort people refer to usually involves the other passengers, not the amenities. But everyone knows you're not supposed to talk specifically about that aspect of public transportation.
      - rootusrootus 8y ago
        Ha, I will! I once had a guy behind me on the train whip out his penis and pee on the floor. Looked right at me in the reflection of the window as he did it. He wasn't even crazy, either, as far as I could tell, just antisocial. And yes, before you say it, that isn't an everyday occurrence. But jackasses refusing to take their bag off the seat so you can sit down is. As are people who can't be bothered to take a shower, or think that cologne will make up for it. The list goes on. Many people are just unpleasant to be around, and I don't see any problem with that observation. For me, public transit comfort comes down to a couple things. First, the hard plastic seats make my butt hurt, and standing makes my left foot ache. Sorry, I'm getting old :). Second, the 2x time it takes to get anywhere means I'm on that terrible seat for even longer. And third, because yes, it's absolutely true, I find that perhaps one in ten people is unpleasant enough that I want to be out of visual and/or aromatic range.

illumin8 8y ago

> There's been a lot of tax breaks/money that goes into these programs too, and that's the tragic thing, since that funding should be going to known solutions: public transportation (trains, trams and express buses). Citation needed. > Even if you had a full-autonomous only Interstate where each car could be fully loaded and ride bumper-bumper at over 100kph, it wouldn't even begin reach the carrying capacity of currently existing fully autonomous subways systems like those in Singapore. Citation needed.

A2017U1 8y ago
From the comment guidelines: > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. Handling 30k passengers per hour is manageable for most rail lines around the world. Torontos Bloor line does 500,000 daily. Similarly highways are constrained to their own maximums per lane, and counterintuitively raising the speed limit doesn't help. 1500-1700 vehicles per hour is a fair estimate. http://buckholztraffic.com/UNF/Data%20Analysis/2%20Lane%20Highway%20Notes.htm http://buckholztraffic.com/UNF/Data%20Analysis/2%20Lane%20Hi...
- illumin8 8y ago
  He posted unsubstantiated claims about tax breaks (I'd like to learn where there are tax breaks for autonomous vehicles) and a claim about trains having more throughput than an interstate with cars fully loaded moving 100kph bumper to bumper. Asking for citations might be a shallow dismissal, but stating hypotheses without facts to substantiate them is also shallow.
  - dang 8y ago
    That's true, but taking the thread further in the wrong direction only makes it worse. There are other ways to ask for more information, that open discussion up rather than stiffening into confrontation. Please post in that spirit instead.
  - djsumdog 8y ago
    Did you click on the link? It goes the the article I wrote, which has a ton of sources at the bottom.

koala_man 8y ago

Autonomous subways are great for places like Singapore, but there are quite a lot of places where throughput is not an issue and where doubling the mass transit subsidies means hiring a second bus driver so the line can run every two hours instead of every four.

mcny 8y ago
Someone mentioned in HN that a bus every four minutes is a very expensive subway train. I think I agree. I think this is the situation for most New York MTA buses at peak hour. These buses should be in a dedicated track on a subway, not sharing lanes with traffic.

dominotw 8y ago

Singapore? Tokyo? America is different is so many ways I don't even know where to begin.

djsumdog 8y ago
America had more commuter/passenger rail in the 1940/50s than Europe has today. Russia and China are more spread apart and they both have more high speed real than American has. Every Australian capitol except Darwin/Hobart and ACT have commuter train systems, and they have the same land mass as the US with 1/6 of the people. I hate hearing people use the argument you used, because it's just straight up wrong. If American built rail, you'd be surprised to see how quickly development would flock to build around it. American spread out like it did because the nation moved to Interstates.
- dominotw 8y ago
  > Russia and China are more spread apart and they both have more high speed real than American has. How do you explain car craze in china. Its the biggest car market in the world and one thats growing rapidly. So exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting would happen is happening in china. China comparisons makes no sense. Car ownership is not accessible to most chinese they have no option but to build a rail system. It is not because ppl prefer travelling in trains(vs cars) its because they have no other option. You have cause and effect reversed. If everyone in china can afford a car like USA they would prefer American interstate system. Who would possibly want to live in cramped quarters built around rail system when you can live in suburban mansion with basement home theatre system.
  - mcny 8y ago
    > Who would possibly want to live in cramped quarters built around rail system when you can live in suburban mansion with basement home theatre system. Sorry if I sound selfish but it is really scary to think of 1.5 Billion people doing what the 330 million US Americans do. At some point, I'd argue there is no such thing as sovereignty. I, a neighbor, have a right to not suffocate to death more than you have a right to burn your house to the ground (or I'll take it by force even if I don't have that right).

kccqzy 8y ago

> fully autonomous subways systems like those in Singapore Nitpick, but in Singapore only three subway lines are fully autonomous (CC, DT, NE). The remaining two are not (EW, NS) because they were built with older technologies.

chrismcb 8y ago

Most of the money spent on autonomous autos is being spent on research, while most of the money spent on public transportation solves a select few routes. Solving auto driving essentially solves it everywhere. Here in Seattle we are spending over 50 billion to put in a couple of light rails, and it won't even be close to being enough public transportation. The money the government is putting in self driving pales in comparison to what is being put into public transportation. Even with public transportation, you still need self driving cars. Look at nyc or London, hey both have great subay systems and yet have some of the worst traffic. Not to mention self driving technologies can help public transportation, freight deliveries, as well as others.

aikinai 8y ago
New York and London have okay subways. Tokyo has a great subway and incredibly light traffic.
- m_mueller 8y ago
  I’d argue that Tokyo’s PT is so good that the last mile is mostly your feet if you’re able bodied. Autonomous cars is mostly something that makes sense in less densely populated places IMO. Which does include most of the US, but frankly I doubt car sharing will make a big impact there soon.
djsumdog 8y ago
Seattle's ST3 is a massive project and it will solve a lot of problems! The extension goes all the way to the Redmond tech center and the other extension will eventually make it to Everett, meaning there will finally be a train that runs all the time instead of just a few times per day M-F and for select sport events. There are so many people who cannot afford housing anywhere near Seattle and they are the runs who run your Wal-greens and Starbucks. They have to sit in traffic on I-5 or wait for express buses. This will be a big step up and it's only a start. Seattle needed ST3 a decade ago, and it's going to have a way bigger impact that you think.

oh_sigh 8y ago

> Even if you had a full-autonomous only Interstate where each car could be fully loaded and ride bumper-bumper at over 100kph, it wouldn't even begin reach the carrying capacity of currently existing fully autonomous subways systems like those in Singapore. This is a poor comparison because cars on highways don't serve at all the same needs as subways in one of the densely populated areas in the world. I'm sure I could construct comparisons where airplanes fail, but a fleet of bicycles succeed(or vice versa), but that doesn't mean that humanity should pick one or the other as the optimal solution.

vilhelm_s 8y ago

A full train on the Singapore North East Line can carry 1920 passengers (at 6 passengers/m^2), and at rush hour it runs 1 train per 2 or 3 minutes, so it carries 16 passengers/second. A fully loaded Toyota Corolla carries five people and is 4.65 meters long, so at 100 km/h each lane of the highway would carry 30 passengers/second. So the highway would carry several times more passengers than the subway. Even though each train can pack more passengers per square meter than a car, it's not possible to run the trains back-to-back at 100 km/h, because they need to stop to let passengers off and on. At rush hour, the rate of the subway system is basically limited by how quickly people can flow from the platform into the train.

xvedejas 8y ago
A fully-utilized freeway in the way you describe is one that cars cannot easily get on/off of (where is the space for them?). They will have to wait at the on-ramp to be scheduled into a slot. Because of this, the average throughput of a highway necessarily is less than the max-speed max-packed scenario, since the bottleneck is actually the on/off-ramps and feeder streets.
- vilhelm_s 8y ago
  Of course, but the comment I replied to says that the max-speed max-packed scenario has much less throughput than a subway. That's completely wrong, and it's important to point out that it's wrong in order to see where the actual bottlenecks are (at the on/off ramps and feeder streets).
Johnny555 8y ago
You're ignoring space between cars, even with full automation you can't have a highway full of cars with no space between them, else there'd be no room for cars to merge on/off the freeway, and any traffic disruption would cause an immediate traffic back-up. Add one car length of distance and that puts the train in the same ballpark as the freeway lane. (I'll ignore the challenge of filling the Corolla with 5 people - I don't want to be the guy stuck in the middle seat) Though the problem isn't just throughput of the freeway, but also a question of where all of those cars are going to go when they get to the destination -- generally the commute traffic is going the same place at the same time. Self driving cars may not need a parking space, but if they are going to drop off passengers and then drive away to park somewhere outside of the city center, that causes even more city traffic. because they need to stop to let passengers off and on. At rush hour, the rate of the subway system is basically limited by how quickly people can flow from the platform into the train. That's why large train stations have multiple tracks.