4 ms·

If you're going to block off lanes and install sensors why not just lay track and use streetcars? Rail is way more efficient. This has been a solved problem for

If you're going to block off lanes and install sensors why not just lay track and use streetcars? Rail is way more efficient. This has been a solved problem for the better part of two centuries.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
paxys 2y ago
That's like asking why do cars and roads exist at all when everyone can just use public transit. The answer is that people want cars. They want to drive. They want to be taken directly from point A to point B without needing to walk to transit stops and switch buses/trains and face unpredictable schedules and delays. Autonomous road infrastructure is a sensible, incremental improvement. And in fact city buses will tend to benefit from it the most.
- jcgrillo 2y ago
  How are you going to keep me in my non-autonomous car out of your special "autonomous only and also maybe busses" lane? EDIT: and yes, it's a completely reasonable question to ask why invest in special new kinds of roads when more people would be better served by public transit.
  - paxys 2y ago
    ..the exact same way every other traffic rule is enforced? How do you stop cars from driving on the wrong side of the road or running a red light?
    - jcgrillo 2y ago
      Those things are easy to detect. It's much less easy to prevent a simple lane change. Some cities have "bus only" lanes, which cars use anyway, but it's easy to detect them since they don't look like busses. How are you going to detect that my car isn't autonomous?
      - paxys 2y ago
        These are pointless concerns. It is a technically trivial problem. We are literally in a thread about self driving cars. If there is a will to enforce it then it will be enforced.
        jcgrillo 2y ago
        That's what I'm trying to get at--why would there be any will? Why should we all decide to give up a lane to people who are rich (or stupid) enough to buy a brand new car?
      - infthi 2y ago
        Have speed cameras with license plate recognition and add "is_av" bit associated with a license plate. Or maybe just issue license plates with a different color to avs. Like taxis/public transport having yellow license plates in some jurisdictions.
- quest88 2y ago
  I almost agree. I'd say people want the most convenient thing. We can see people do not want to drive by the fact people who owns cars take public transit, or take the high speed train when driving is an option.
  - jcgrillo 2y ago
    making public transit convenient is easy: congestion price the cars the fuck outta downtown. Bingo, public transit just got more convenient!
- panick21_ 2y ago
  Ok so your problem with fixed infrastructure is that it is fixed, and your solution is to create a slightly different fixed infrastructe that has many of the same problems, but instead its more expensive, less tested, less safe and less efficent? > The answer is that people want cars. Actually in many cities in the world, only a minor % of people own a car. And even those that do own a car don't use if for that many trips. > They want to drive. Driving in cities is almost universally hated and is proven to cause lots of stress. > and face unpredictable schedules and delays. Because in cars its impossible to have unpredictable delays, roads are always completely open and there is never any concention? In most cities in the world, public transport has less unpredictable delays compared to driving. > Autonomous road infrastructure is a sensible, incremental improvement. And in fact city buses will tend to benefit from it the most. A sensible incredmental improvment are regular bus lanes with regular trolley buses.
alwejrlaw 2y ago
As much as I love urban rail, its usefulness scales in direct proportion to population density. Europe has >2x the population density of the US. Japan has 10x the population density of the US. Rail for transit just doesn't make as much sense for the US. It works in a few of our densest cities, but nowhere else. Buses are cheaper, simpler, and easier than rail, but also are useful in proportion to density.
- astrange 2y ago
  Japan has pretty good rail in the parts of the country that aren't dense. The way you get it is (among other things) transit-oriented development, which the US has the exact opposite of when they surround suburban train stations with giant parking lots.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  This has always been a bullshit claim. The US HAD good urban rail infrastructure back when we were less dense and had half as many people total. Even if the claim (you need Europe density) wasn't trivially false, several parts of the US DO meet that level of density and could easily support good public infrastructure. Or do you not know that in the early 1900s nearly every city had copious public transportation that was relied on by literally everyone in the city?
htrp 2y ago
I feel like we did that back in the '50s and then the auto lobby had us strip it all out (in the USA)
- astrange 2y ago
  Earlier than that, and IIRC what actually happened was cities decided the streetcars were greedy, put price caps on the fares, and they went out of business.
toast0 2y ago
Streetcar rails are terrible for bikes and pedestrians. Dedicated bus lanes are a lot more flexible. A rail car is probably more efficient than a bus, but a bus is a lot less expensive.
- Doctor_Fegg 2y ago
  As a cyclist I’d rather take my chances with streetcar rails than with cars. Rails don’t appear from nowhere and hit me.
  - toast0 2y ago
    Street car rails probably won't appear from nowhere, but if your tire falls into the gap for the rail, you're very likely to crash. Seattle has a tiny amount of street car rail, but regularly pays out large damages to people injured by the rails.
    - jcgrillo 2y ago
      I've seen people wreck super hard trying to cross the streetcar rails at too shallow an angle in pdx multiple times. But that's an optional behavior. Just the other day I saw a moose crossing the road over in Twin Mountain, and I chose to slow down and not hit it. If I'd made another choice that resulted in a collision, and I'd survived, I wouldn't expect to get some settlement from the town of Twin Mountain, NH. Similarly if you ride your bike into a train track that one's pretty much on you lol.. being aware of one's surroundings is one of those basic life skills.
      - toast0 2y ago
        Installing a huge hazard in the road is optional too, though. If [insert city here] had saved money and used a bus instead of a street car, all of the problems that come from having a rail in the road would have been avoided. For heavy rail, they don't often run in the road, parallel with the road, in the lane of travel. And when they do, it's usually in an industrial area that people aren't walking and cycling through.

If you're going to block off lanes and install sensors why not just lay track and use streetcars? Rail is way more efficient. This has been a solved problem for the better part of two centuries.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

paxys 2y ago

That's like asking why do cars and roads exist at all when everyone can just use public transit. The answer is that people want cars. They want to drive. They want to be taken directly from point A to point B without needing to walk to transit stops and switch buses/trains and face unpredictable schedules and delays. Autonomous road infrastructure is a sensible, incremental improvement. And in fact city buses will tend to benefit from it the most.

jcgrillo 2y ago
How are you going to keep me in my non-autonomous car out of your special "autonomous only and also maybe busses" lane? EDIT: and yes, it's a completely reasonable question to ask why invest in special new kinds of roads when more people would be better served by public transit.
- paxys 2y ago
  ..the exact same way every other traffic rule is enforced? How do you stop cars from driving on the wrong side of the road or running a red light?
  - jcgrillo 2y ago
    Those things are easy to detect. It's much less easy to prevent a simple lane change. Some cities have "bus only" lanes, which cars use anyway, but it's easy to detect them since they don't look like busses. How are you going to detect that my car isn't autonomous?
    - paxys 2y ago
      These are pointless concerns. It is a technically trivial problem. We are literally in a thread about self driving cars. If there is a will to enforce it then it will be enforced.
      - jcgrillo 2y ago
        That's what I'm trying to get at--why would there be any will? Why should we all decide to give up a lane to people who are rich (or stupid) enough to buy a brand new car?
    - infthi 2y ago
      Have speed cameras with license plate recognition and add "is_av" bit associated with a license plate. Or maybe just issue license plates with a different color to avs. Like taxis/public transport having yellow license plates in some jurisdictions.
quest88 2y ago
I almost agree. I'd say people want the most convenient thing. We can see people do not want to drive by the fact people who owns cars take public transit, or take the high speed train when driving is an option.
- jcgrillo 2y ago
  making public transit convenient is easy: congestion price the cars the fuck outta downtown. Bingo, public transit just got more convenient!
panick21_ 2y ago
Ok so your problem with fixed infrastructure is that it is fixed, and your solution is to create a slightly different fixed infrastructe that has many of the same problems, but instead its more expensive, less tested, less safe and less efficent? > The answer is that people want cars. Actually in many cities in the world, only a minor % of people own a car. And even those that do own a car don't use if for that many trips. > They want to drive. Driving in cities is almost universally hated and is proven to cause lots of stress. > and face unpredictable schedules and delays. Because in cars its impossible to have unpredictable delays, roads are always completely open and there is never any concention? In most cities in the world, public transport has less unpredictable delays compared to driving. > Autonomous road infrastructure is a sensible, incremental improvement. And in fact city buses will tend to benefit from it the most. A sensible incredmental improvment are regular bus lanes with regular trolley buses.

alwejrlaw 2y ago

As much as I love urban rail, its usefulness scales in direct proportion to population density. Europe has >2x the population density of the US. Japan has 10x the population density of the US. Rail for transit just doesn't make as much sense for the US. It works in a few of our densest cities, but nowhere else. Buses are cheaper, simpler, and easier than rail, but also are useful in proportion to density.

astrange 2y ago
Japan has pretty good rail in the parts of the country that aren't dense. The way you get it is (among other things) transit-oriented development, which the US has the exact opposite of when they surround suburban train stations with giant parking lots.
mrguyorama 2y ago
This has always been a bullshit claim. The US HAD good urban rail infrastructure back when we were less dense and had half as many people total. Even if the claim (you need Europe density) wasn't trivially false, several parts of the US DO meet that level of density and could easily support good public infrastructure. Or do you not know that in the early 1900s nearly every city had copious public transportation that was relied on by literally everyone in the city?

htrp 2y ago

I feel like we did that back in the '50s and then the auto lobby had us strip it all out (in the USA)

astrange 2y ago
Earlier than that, and IIRC what actually happened was cities decided the streetcars were greedy, put price caps on the fares, and they went out of business.

toast0 2y ago

Streetcar rails are terrible for bikes and pedestrians. Dedicated bus lanes are a lot more flexible. A rail car is probably more efficient than a bus, but a bus is a lot less expensive.

Doctor_Fegg 2y ago
As a cyclist I’d rather take my chances with streetcar rails than with cars. Rails don’t appear from nowhere and hit me.
- toast0 2y ago
  Street car rails probably won't appear from nowhere, but if your tire falls into the gap for the rail, you're very likely to crash. Seattle has a tiny amount of street car rail, but regularly pays out large damages to people injured by the rails.
  - jcgrillo 2y ago
    I've seen people wreck super hard trying to cross the streetcar rails at too shallow an angle in pdx multiple times. But that's an optional behavior. Just the other day I saw a moose crossing the road over in Twin Mountain, and I chose to slow down and not hit it. If I'd made another choice that resulted in a collision, and I'd survived, I wouldn't expect to get some settlement from the town of Twin Mountain, NH. Similarly if you ride your bike into a train track that one's pretty much on you lol.. being aware of one's surroundings is one of those basic life skills.
    - toast0 2y ago
      Installing a huge hazard in the road is optional too, though. If [insert city here] had saved money and used a bus instead of a street car, all of the problems that come from having a rail in the road would have been avoided. For heavy rail, they don't often run in the road, parallel with the road, in the lane of travel. And when they do, it's usually in an industrial area that people aren't walking and cycling through.