3 ms·

> Autonomous cooperative cars would convoy in dynamic flocks in a way that does point to point transit with a lot of the advantages of trains The main advantag

> Autonomous cooperative cars would convoy in dynamic flocks in a way that does point to point transit with a lot of the advantages of trains The main advantages of trains are: * Dedicated right of way - which you cant't get with cars. * High route capacity - even a unrealistic 10x improvement still doesn't compete with trains. At 2x it's worse than busses. * Cheap running & maintenance costs - doubtful running costs are similar, certainly not maintenance. Trains do however congest, you get that a lot in the USA when you don't have dedicated passenger lines. > Even having a modest percent of all cars on the roads cooperative autonomous vehicles using basic control theory to relieve congestion would aid the entire cities traffic (there have been several studies proving this). There have also been several studies into something called induced demand. The result of reducing car traffic is that more people choose to drive, resulting in more car traffic. The only way to actually reduce traffic is viable alternatives to driving.

seanmcdirmid 2y ago
Getting rid of parking can get rid of traffic since less people will drive if they aren’t confident that they can get a parking space. Most US cities have a ton of on street parking that they could eliminate to put an indirect dent in congestion. This would also mean fewer people with cars (since a lot of people rely on free on street parking at home) and would lead to better use of streets (transit lanes, bike lanes, wider pedestrian sidewalks, etc…). Also, if people can’t as easily own and operate cars, demand for public transit will shoot up (like in Japan and Europe, although they never experienced a car boom like the USA).
- ben-schaaf 2y ago
  I completely agree, but I don't see what that has to do with this discussion. What people are arguing for is using robot taxis as a city's primary/only public transportation, which just means more people with cars.
  - fnordpiglet 2y ago
    Sorry, how would robot taxis mean more people with cars? Robot taxis are generally either driving or parked at their lot. That’s not people with cars, that’s people in on demand cars that park outside the city away from the people.
    - ben-schaaf 2y ago
      Removing parking reduces congestion because less people take the car, taking alternative forms of transportation instead. Removing parking to improve traffic flow so that you can push more robot taxis through the city results in more cars.
      - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        You can always limit robotaxi fleets via legislation, medallions were a thing before Uber/lift. Even if they aren’t limited, not having the sunk cost of a personal car can lead to more transit use anyways as long as robo taxis are priced appropriately higher. My main point is that taking away easy/street parking will be more effective than just not building roads or even going with congestion pricing.
MostlyStable 2y ago
"induced" demand is just the normal demand curve when the "price" is something other than money, in the case of traffic: time. It's not some special kind of thing. You build more lanes, that reduces the time of a commute, that reduces the "price" and therefore more is "demanded" until you back up at the equilibrium. It works exactly the same as every other good except that the price is in a different currency. No one is surprised when, if the baker lowers their cost, more people buy bread. Yet somehow, people are flabbergasted when, if you reduce travel times, more people travel.
- fnordpiglet 2y ago
  There are practical limits though. In a sub urban environment with plenty of big roads they aren’t congested at all times because of the unlimited supply of free road space. The goal is to minimize total time commuting while minimizing externalities. EVs from renewable sources obviates a huge one, and obviates noise and other issues. Autonomous cooperative vehicles that are smaller overall relieves the rest.

seanmcdirmid 2y ago

Getting rid of parking can get rid of traffic since less people will drive if they aren’t confident that they can get a parking space. Most US cities have a ton of on street parking that they could eliminate to put an indirect dent in congestion. This would also mean fewer people with cars (since a lot of people rely on free on street parking at home) and would lead to better use of streets (transit lanes, bike lanes, wider pedestrian sidewalks, etc…). Also, if people can’t as easily own and operate cars, demand for public transit will shoot up (like in Japan and Europe, although they never experienced a car boom like the USA).

ben-schaaf 2y ago
I completely agree, but I don't see what that has to do with this discussion. What people are arguing for is using robot taxis as a city's primary/only public transportation, which just means more people with cars.
- fnordpiglet 2y ago
  Sorry, how would robot taxis mean more people with cars? Robot taxis are generally either driving or parked at their lot. That’s not people with cars, that’s people in on demand cars that park outside the city away from the people.
  - ben-schaaf 2y ago
    Removing parking reduces congestion because less people take the car, taking alternative forms of transportation instead. Removing parking to improve traffic flow so that you can push more robot taxis through the city results in more cars.
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      You can always limit robotaxi fleets via legislation, medallions were a thing before Uber/lift. Even if they aren’t limited, not having the sunk cost of a personal car can lead to more transit use anyways as long as robo taxis are priced appropriately higher. My main point is that taking away easy/street parking will be more effective than just not building roads or even going with congestion pricing.

MostlyStable 2y ago

"induced" demand is just the normal demand curve when the "price" is something other than money, in the case of traffic: time. It's not some special kind of thing. You build more lanes, that reduces the time of a commute, that reduces the "price" and therefore more is "demanded" until you back up at the equilibrium. It works exactly the same as every other good except that the price is in a different currency. No one is surprised when, if the baker lowers their cost, more people buy bread. Yet somehow, people are flabbergasted when, if you reduce travel times, more people travel.

fnordpiglet 2y ago
There are practical limits though. In a sub urban environment with plenty of big roads they aren’t congested at all times because of the unlimited supply of free road space. The goal is to minimize total time commuting while minimizing externalities. EVs from renewable sources obviates a huge one, and obviates noise and other issues. Autonomous cooperative vehicles that are smaller overall relieves the rest.