3 ms·
There are a lot of places where trains (above or below ground) and trams will still make sense. It's going to be nearly impossible to automate past the fundamen
by rtkwe 8y ago
There are a lot of places where trains (above or below ground) and trams will still make sense. It's going to be nearly impossible to automate past the fundamental limits of street space in cities like New York for automated cars to surpass the sheer volume of people serviced by the subway.
- martythemaniak 8y agoWell, you always have to take in account sunk costs. Places like NY already have tunnels and trans and tracks, so it will likely never make economic sense to replace those with something new. But think about what a tram is - typically, several linked cars attached to a wire running on tracks. Why are they linked? Because you need a driver to keep costs low, otherwise you'd unlink those cars and have more frequent service. Why are they attached to a wire? Because batteries are expensive. Why are they on a track? A bit cheaper, but in many places (Lyon, Montreal) they are not. What is changing is the price of battery and soon, the price of driver. Trams are built on assumptions that are changing, so would they not as well?
- rtkwe 8y agoYeah they certainly benefit from already having the infrastructure already in place, but most large cities are only going to get more dense as time goes on and adding additional roads to urban cores is always going to be very hard. After a certain point the only way to provide enough transportation is to go underground just to avoid tearing up the existing city.