3 ms·

> To have the city planning work correctly you kind of need participation from the cars Perhaps for the optimum solution, but you can get a _lot_ better (than

> To have the city planning work correctly you kind of need participation from the cars Perhaps for the optimum solution, but you can get a _lot_ better (than things are at the moment) without that. There are plenty of cities that use sensors and cameras to adjust traffic light timing throughout the day, and have done for some time (In the 90s I studied the system used in Sydney, which had already been in existence for some time then). But these things cost money. Also, you don't need driverless cars for destination data - anyone using Google/Apple Maps/Waze, or even any recent car's inbuilt nav system can provide this. And I reckon that even with the optimal solution in this regard, you'll still end up with traffic jams, as individual cars take a lot of space. Start thinking in terms of mass transit, cycling, and city planning to allow walking to the shops.

alooPotato 3y ago
You're right the sensors help a lot too - but if a city doesn't have them then thats physical infra that needs to be bought and installed. Unfortunately, this isn't that easy any more in the US at least. Maps/Waze data is a good point and I saw an article recently that Google is providing anonymized data to cities to help them optimize their traffic lights. The one thing the driverless cars get you is the ability to traffic shape. You could imagine cities granting permits to waymo/cruise/etc only if they support dynamic pricing (or dynamic taxes, whatever) and dynamic routing to help distribute vehicles more evenly in space and time. On the public transit thing... mainly because shared driverless EVs are basically a form of mass transit and I think a really good one. You can see some of my other comments on why...
- askvictor 3y ago
  Maps/Waze can also shape traffic by suggesting different routes. One interesting half-way-there solution (and this is a technical solution involving cars, not reducing them as I'd much prefer) would be to have nav apps be able to read the traffic light timings for the intended route, and give you a suggested speed to travel at to maximise green lights and/or traffic throughput. It would piss off cars that want to go exactly at the speed limit, but would probably end up getting them to their destination faster. In both cases, cities could offer incentive schemes (e.g. points -> $ or discounts off licence/registration fees) to encourage people to 'follow the computer'. Would probably be cheaper than building infrastructure.

alooPotato 3y ago

You're right the sensors help a lot too - but if a city doesn't have them then thats physical infra that needs to be bought and installed. Unfortunately, this isn't that easy any more in the US at least. Maps/Waze data is a good point and I saw an article recently that Google is providing anonymized data to cities to help them optimize their traffic lights. The one thing the driverless cars get you is the ability to traffic shape. You could imagine cities granting permits to waymo/cruise/etc only if they support dynamic pricing (or dynamic taxes, whatever) and dynamic routing to help distribute vehicles more evenly in space and time. On the public transit thing... mainly because shared driverless EVs are basically a form of mass transit and I think a really good one. You can see some of my other comments on why...

askvictor 3y ago
Maps/Waze can also shape traffic by suggesting different routes. One interesting half-way-there solution (and this is a technical solution involving cars, not reducing them as I'd much prefer) would be to have nav apps be able to read the traffic light timings for the intended route, and give you a suggested speed to travel at to maximise green lights and/or traffic throughput. It would piss off cars that want to go exactly at the speed limit, but would probably end up getting them to their destination faster. In both cases, cities could offer incentive schemes (e.g. points -> $ or discounts off licence/registration fees) to encourage people to 'follow the computer'. Would probably be cheaper than building infrastructure.