6 ms·

> A high utilization Tesla Model 3 has costs per mile, including electricity, of around $0.10-$0.15/mile. > For comparison, the gas tax alone on the average ve

> A high utilization Tesla Model 3 has costs per mile, including electricity, of around $0.10-$0.15/mile. > For comparison, the gas tax alone on the average vehicle was about $0.01-$0.02/mile 10 years ago. (Depends on your state and your MPG) > When that vehicle can drive itself from most Point As to most Point Bs on most days, public transit doesn’t have prayer of competing. Basically you're talking about a highly utilized, self-driving electric vehicle with virtually infinite range. I believe you're describing Vancouver SkyTrain -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver)

zaroth 7y ago
Yes, but replace 53 fixed pickup and drop off locations, with pickup and drop off “virtually anywhere”. And replace a fixed timetable schedule and massive upfront capital costs with perfectly elastic timetables and consumer subsidized capital costs (Tesla Fleet). Double the top speed. Add a few zeros to the daily ridership. Add 4 zeros to the number of vehicles. Etc... Putting people on rails makes no sense when the electric cars drive themselves.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  > Putting people on rails makes no sense when the electric cars drive themselves. Um... traffic? Road infrastructure costs? Energy efficiency?
  - zaroth 7y ago
    Road cost efficiency increases the more small vehicle traffic you put on it. Think high speed autonomous caravans. The cost per mile is already too low. That’s the over-demand problem being discussed in TFA. Autonomous driving technology will triple existing highway capacity by ~2050 when it becomes illegal to drive non-autonomously. That’s a lot of “free” infrastructure. We should not invest billions in light rail that will be unprofitable its entire life and archaic in 50 years.
    - shkkmo 7y ago
      > Road cost efficiency increases the more small vehicle traffic you put on it. Think high speed autonomous caravans. Higher density vehicles (like buses) increase road cost efficiency even more. For long distances, rail is far more efficient in terms of both energy and infrastructure cost. > The cost per mile is already too low. That’s the over-demand problem being discussed in TFA. The article doesn't really have a clear thesis and its (unsupported) title sort of contradicts that. The best I can tell is that the articles tries to argue that single-occupancy car trips should (and will) become more expensive because of no longer being subsidized. > Autonomous driving technology will triple existing highway capacity by ~2050 when it becomes illegal to drive non-autonomously. That’s a lot of “free” infrastructure. The wasted space of, and maintenance costs for, that infrastructure makes it far from "free". In the short term, the degree to which autonomous cars and ride hailing make single occupancy car trips more available and affordable is going to increase the congestion and amount of needed infrastructure. > We should not invest billions in light rail that will be unprofitable its entire life and archaic in 50 years. The trade-offs of light rail vs. buses is complicated. I highly suspect that buses, and infrastructure to support buses is often the better choice. That is especially true given the flexibility we need in the face of a changing transportation landscape. That doesn't justify "self-driving cars" mean mass transit "makes no sense". For some of that mass transit, rail is still the best option.
      - zaroth 7y ago
        My point about autonomous driving software increasing highway capacity granting us "free" infrastructure is not to say the underlying infrastructure is free (hence the quotes). But when existing infrastructure becomes 3x more efficient due to private market software development, you have effectively tripled the value of your infrastructure for free. An inner-city bus ride costs $2.00 and doesn't get me door to door. The cost of getting to the bus and getting from the bus stop to my actual destination pushes that, even at minimum wage, probably closer to $5+. That's 30 miles (at cost) door to door in a hypothetical Tesla RoboTaxi! How can a bus compete with that? Yes, a bus is a much more efficient use of space on the road, but it is not more efficient to the individual riders. Hence the negative externality. But in reality, the real-world usage (market-share) of buses and light rail is so negligible as to be almost entirely irrelevant. "US Passenger Miles" according to the Bureau of Transportation in 2017 for Highway travel is 5,502,417. That number is in Millions. Whoa... That does include 365,220 labeled "Bus" which appears to be private charter, not public transit. In the "Transit" section "Bus" is 19,343 and "Light rail" is 2,795, "Commuter Rail" is 12,321 million passenger miles. That means Bus, Light, and Commuter Rail total 34,459 million passenger miles, which is ~0.6% the number of Passenger-Miles traveled by private vehicles on the highway. By the way, for longer rail trips, Amtrak is 6,527 million passenger miles in 2017 (declining year over year) and air travel is 693,818 million passenger miles and growing year over year. Heck, lets get electrified air travel and ditch trains for passenger travel as well. Heavy freight via train will still possibly make sense, although autonomous trucking will probably steal a lot of market share. For hazardous materials and national security purposes you probably still need the heavy freight network to be operational. It would be cooler if the really big stuff all went via dirigible though. [1] - https://www.bts.gov/content/us-passenger-miles https://www.bts.gov/content/us-passenger-miles
- prolepunk 7y ago
  Putting people on [existing, widely deployed and practical solution] makes no sense when [improbable and technologically infeasible thing that doesn't exist while also fudging the numbers].
  - zaroth 7y ago
    Rail investment is on the timeline of decades. I'd say it's not only probable but highly likely we have full autonomy in the next 10 years. And I got the SkyTrain numbers from the provided Wikipedia link, the Tesla costs from an Autolist report on Model 3 depreciation, and the gax tax cost hand waved based on $0.35/gallon and 25mpg (US average).

zaroth 7y ago

Yes, but replace 53 fixed pickup and drop off locations, with pickup and drop off “virtually anywhere”. And replace a fixed timetable schedule and massive upfront capital costs with perfectly elastic timetables and consumer subsidized capital costs (Tesla Fleet). Double the top speed. Add a few zeros to the daily ridership. Add 4 zeros to the number of vehicles. Etc... Putting people on rails makes no sense when the electric cars drive themselves.

shkkmo 7y ago
> Putting people on rails makes no sense when the electric cars drive themselves. Um... traffic? Road infrastructure costs? Energy efficiency?
- zaroth 7y ago
  Road cost efficiency increases the more small vehicle traffic you put on it. Think high speed autonomous caravans. The cost per mile is already too low. That’s the over-demand problem being discussed in TFA. Autonomous driving technology will triple existing highway capacity by ~2050 when it becomes illegal to drive non-autonomously. That’s a lot of “free” infrastructure. We should not invest billions in light rail that will be unprofitable its entire life and archaic in 50 years.
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    > Road cost efficiency increases the more small vehicle traffic you put on it. Think high speed autonomous caravans. Higher density vehicles (like buses) increase road cost efficiency even more. For long distances, rail is far more efficient in terms of both energy and infrastructure cost. > The cost per mile is already too low. That’s the over-demand problem being discussed in TFA. The article doesn't really have a clear thesis and its (unsupported) title sort of contradicts that. The best I can tell is that the articles tries to argue that single-occupancy car trips should (and will) become more expensive because of no longer being subsidized. > Autonomous driving technology will triple existing highway capacity by ~2050 when it becomes illegal to drive non-autonomously. That’s a lot of “free” infrastructure. The wasted space of, and maintenance costs for, that infrastructure makes it far from "free". In the short term, the degree to which autonomous cars and ride hailing make single occupancy car trips more available and affordable is going to increase the congestion and amount of needed infrastructure. > We should not invest billions in light rail that will be unprofitable its entire life and archaic in 50 years. The trade-offs of light rail vs. buses is complicated. I highly suspect that buses, and infrastructure to support buses is often the better choice. That is especially true given the flexibility we need in the face of a changing transportation landscape. That doesn't justify "self-driving cars" mean mass transit "makes no sense". For some of that mass transit, rail is still the best option.
    - zaroth 7y ago
      My point about autonomous driving software increasing highway capacity granting us "free" infrastructure is not to say the underlying infrastructure is free (hence the quotes). But when existing infrastructure becomes 3x more efficient due to private market software development, you have effectively tripled the value of your infrastructure for free. An inner-city bus ride costs $2.00 and doesn't get me door to door. The cost of getting to the bus and getting from the bus stop to my actual destination pushes that, even at minimum wage, probably closer to $5+. That's 30 miles (at cost) door to door in a hypothetical Tesla RoboTaxi! How can a bus compete with that? Yes, a bus is a much more efficient use of space on the road, but it is not more efficient to the individual riders. Hence the negative externality. But in reality, the real-world usage (market-share) of buses and light rail is so negligible as to be almost entirely irrelevant. "US Passenger Miles" according to the Bureau of Transportation in 2017 for Highway travel is 5,502,417. That number is in Millions. Whoa... That does include 365,220 labeled "Bus" which appears to be private charter, not public transit. In the "Transit" section "Bus" is 19,343 and "Light rail" is 2,795, "Commuter Rail" is 12,321 million passenger miles. That means Bus, Light, and Commuter Rail total 34,459 million passenger miles, which is ~0.6% the number of Passenger-Miles traveled by private vehicles on the highway. By the way, for longer rail trips, Amtrak is 6,527 million passenger miles in 2017 (declining year over year) and air travel is 693,818 million passenger miles and growing year over year. Heck, lets get electrified air travel and ditch trains for passenger travel as well. Heavy freight via train will still possibly make sense, although autonomous trucking will probably steal a lot of market share. For hazardous materials and national security purposes you probably still need the heavy freight network to be operational. It would be cooler if the really big stuff all went via dirigible though. [1] - https://www.bts.gov/content/us-passenger-miles https://www.bts.gov/content/us-passenger-miles
prolepunk 7y ago
Putting people on [existing, widely deployed and practical solution] makes no sense when [improbable and technologically infeasible thing that doesn't exist while also fudging the numbers].
- zaroth 7y ago
  Rail investment is on the timeline of decades. I'd say it's not only probable but highly likely we have full autonomy in the next 10 years. And I got the SkyTrain numbers from the provided Wikipedia link, the Tesla costs from an Autolist report on Model 3 depreciation, and the gax tax cost hand waved based on $0.35/gallon and 25mpg (US average).