3 ms·

Trains aren't really comparable to autonomous lanes. An autonomous car can travel on both normal roads, and in an autonomous lane. Roads are everywhere -- ther

Trains aren't really comparable to autonomous lanes. An autonomous car can travel on both normal roads, and in an autonomous lane. Roads are everywhere -- there's a road leading up to most people's place of residence. Trains rely on tracks which are not as common as roads. Trains are also not owned by individuals. Most people do not have a train station outside of their house.

doctorwho42 4y ago
Perhaps we could dedicate the right most lane on every highway to becoming a train line instead of an autonomous vehicle lane? A train can move more tonnage (see people) per unit of energy (kWhr/gallon of diesel/etc.) Than almost any other mode of transportation (gosh darn sailboats and barges being so efficient!) . So why have 100's of electric motors and separate batteries to move people, when you can skip the batteries and have an electrified third rail and just an engine or two running a train for those hundreds of people.
- TylerE 4y ago
  The nearest thing that might be described as “highway” is 20 miles from my house. It’s the last (few dozen) mile problem passenger trains in the US have always faced for everyone who doesn’t live in the Northeast or SoCal. Guess where the two passenger lines that come even vaguely to profitability are? The population of the US is very coastal, which doesn’t map well to a hub and spoke system like rail. Contrast with Western Europe where A -> Paris/Berlin -> B is probably reasonably close to a straight line.
- shepherdjerred 4y ago
  This is a great idea, but wouldn't paving more road be significantly cheaper and quicker than building rail infrastructure? I'm all for the US pouring money into rail, but the fact is that we're _very_ bad at big infrastructure projects right now. That's not to say that we can't get better though.
  - doctorwho42 4y ago
    The problem we have seen over the last 100 years in highway infrastructure is that demand always increases to fill capacity. The greatest example of this is LA, which has some of the largest highways in the country but still has bumper to bumper traffic. You need to think about it on two metrics; (1) density of transport; how many people per unit volume (2) power to # of passengers. On both counts trains are vastly superior to almost all other modes of transit other than boat.
quink 4y ago
> Trains are also not owned by individuals. Planes aren't either, what's your point? That people who need to go somewhere should be priced out of using _public_ infrastructure and require a personal investment currently in the tens of thousands for the cheapest autonomous cars? > Most people do not have a train station outside of their house. People have feet or a wheelchair, bicycles are a thing, trams and buses exist have you ever even been outside of suburbia?
- TylerE 4y ago
  Plenty of privately owned planes, even privately owned airports. Not many privately owned railways beyond a few garden toys that are more like giant rideable models).
  - quink 4y ago
    JR East has 12,500 bits of rolling stock and 50,000 employees. BNSF has 8,000 locomotives and 41,000 employees. They're listed on the stock exchange and clearly have more than a few garden toys. Also, who implied that railways need to be privately owned?
- shepherdjerred 4y ago
  My overall point is that trains will not replace cars in the United States any time soon, so they would not be a very good replacement for autonomous driving lanes. > Planes aren't either, what's your point? My point is that the comment I replied to implied that trains can replace cars. Trains cannot replace cars because they are a form of public transportation, which cannot easily replace cars. > That people who need to go somewhere should be priced out This is quite the leap. My comment did not argue the merits of either, merely that trains would not be a very good replacement for autonomous vehicle lanes. > have you ever even been outside of suburbia? This isn't useful to your argument. Why are you resorting to a personal attack?
  - quink 4y ago
    Autonomous Driving Lanes world-wide: 0 kilometres. > so they would not be a very good replacement for autonomous driving lanes. Railways world-wide: 1,400,000 kilometres. > Why are you resorting to a personal attack? Are you seriously considering my putting out there that your personal experiences might influence your arguments to the point of not being credible a personal attack?
malikNF 4y ago
> Roads are everywhere -- there's a road leading up to most people's place of residence. But parent's comment was aimed at the one lane for self driving cars comment. So I don’t see how you comment could apply to it. Yes we have roads leading up to almost everyone’s house. But in the case of a dedicated self driving lane proposal it would be as impractical As giving everyone a railway track leading to their home. > Trains are not owned by individuals. Exactly. So instead of building infrastructure to improve moving a few people at a time, improving infrastructure that helps move a few hundred at a time seems like a better investment.

doctorwho42 4y ago

Perhaps we could dedicate the right most lane on every highway to becoming a train line instead of an autonomous vehicle lane? A train can move more tonnage (see people) per unit of energy (kWhr/gallon of diesel/etc.) Than almost any other mode of transportation (gosh darn sailboats and barges being so efficient!) . So why have 100's of electric motors and separate batteries to move people, when you can skip the batteries and have an electrified third rail and just an engine or two running a train for those hundreds of people.

TylerE 4y ago
The nearest thing that might be described as “highway” is 20 miles from my house. It’s the last (few dozen) mile problem passenger trains in the US have always faced for everyone who doesn’t live in the Northeast or SoCal. Guess where the two passenger lines that come even vaguely to profitability are? The population of the US is very coastal, which doesn’t map well to a hub and spoke system like rail. Contrast with Western Europe where A -> Paris/Berlin -> B is probably reasonably close to a straight line.
shepherdjerred 4y ago
This is a great idea, but wouldn't paving more road be significantly cheaper and quicker than building rail infrastructure? I'm all for the US pouring money into rail, but the fact is that we're _very_ bad at big infrastructure projects right now. That's not to say that we can't get better though.
- doctorwho42 4y ago
  The problem we have seen over the last 100 years in highway infrastructure is that demand always increases to fill capacity. The greatest example of this is LA, which has some of the largest highways in the country but still has bumper to bumper traffic. You need to think about it on two metrics; (1) density of transport; how many people per unit volume (2) power to # of passengers. On both counts trains are vastly superior to almost all other modes of transit other than boat.

quink 4y ago

> Trains are also not owned by individuals. Planes aren't either, what's your point? That people who need to go somewhere should be priced out of using _public_ infrastructure and require a personal investment currently in the tens of thousands for the cheapest autonomous cars? > Most people do not have a train station outside of their house. People have feet or a wheelchair, bicycles are a thing, trams and buses exist have you ever even been outside of suburbia?

TylerE 4y ago
Plenty of privately owned planes, even privately owned airports. Not many privately owned railways beyond a few garden toys that are more like giant rideable models).
- quink 4y ago
  JR East has 12,500 bits of rolling stock and 50,000 employees. BNSF has 8,000 locomotives and 41,000 employees. They're listed on the stock exchange and clearly have more than a few garden toys. Also, who implied that railways need to be privately owned?
shepherdjerred 4y ago
My overall point is that trains will not replace cars in the United States any time soon, so they would not be a very good replacement for autonomous driving lanes. > Planes aren't either, what's your point? My point is that the comment I replied to implied that trains can replace cars. Trains cannot replace cars because they are a form of public transportation, which cannot easily replace cars. > That people who need to go somewhere should be priced out This is quite the leap. My comment did not argue the merits of either, merely that trains would not be a very good replacement for autonomous vehicle lanes. > have you ever even been outside of suburbia? This isn't useful to your argument. Why are you resorting to a personal attack?
- quink 4y ago
  Autonomous Driving Lanes world-wide: 0 kilometres. > so they would not be a very good replacement for autonomous driving lanes. Railways world-wide: 1,400,000 kilometres. > Why are you resorting to a personal attack? Are you seriously considering my putting out there that your personal experiences might influence your arguments to the point of not being credible a personal attack?

malikNF 4y ago

> Roads are everywhere -- there's a road leading up to most people's place of residence. But parent's comment was aimed at the one lane for self driving cars comment. So I don’t see how you comment could apply to it. Yes we have roads leading up to almost everyone’s house. But in the case of a dedicated self driving lane proposal it would be as impractical As giving everyone a railway track leading to their home. > Trains are not owned by individuals. Exactly. So instead of building infrastructure to improve moving a few people at a time, improving infrastructure that helps move a few hundred at a time seems like a better investment.