This article seems to offer a somewhat limited vision. Personal, driverless cars may mean as many jams as today. What about "ride-sharing" driverless systems, where many people share the same car/minivan in an automated fashion, reducing the number of vehicles on the road and the need for parking? That would make, IMHO, the best compromise between mass transit (effective, but inflexible to people needs) and personal…
Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow
61–70 of 77 posts
Re: Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow
#62Driverless cars will bring safer roads in terms of exposure measures like deaths/injuries per 1 Million/km. They will also lower the monetary cost of transporting a person per km due to reduction in fleet size and optimised driving and resource allocation. This will benefit nations and economies in providing more economic growth, employment etc by moving more people and goods over the same road network and a smaller…
That's what Google's marketing says. Independent research indicates that self-driving cars may need to be driven many hundreds of millions, or even billions, of miles before their safety is actually proven [1].
This makes sense. For self-driving cars to be safer than human drivers, they don't just need faster reaction times, they also need an ability to understand and reason about their environment that is as good as humans'. And that's a long way off.
_____________
[1] Driving to Safety: How many miles of driving would it take to demonstrate autonomouse vehicle reliability?
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/...
Autonomous vehicles would have to be driven hundreds of millions of miles and sometimes hundreds of
billions of miles to demonstrate their reliability in terms of fatalities and injuries.Re: Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't disagree. In fact I work on software for cars, so my career depends on personal transport staying relevant. However, that doesn't adress the question of whether automated cars will increase or decrease traffic. The original claim was that automated cars will reduce traffic by being more efficient (somehow) and people sharing them for trips. I pointed out that we have the sharing aspect of the issue largely fi…
Okay, so we definitely agree that automation-driven traffic-less utopia is a red herring! Certainly if personal vehicles are replaced 1:1 by automated personal vehicles, congestion will, on average, get worse. Even if they're replaced by automated taxis -- eliminating the need for parking -- this will lead to at least a ~30% increase in vehicles actively on the road due to empty vehicle movements. And that's before y…
Re: Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean sharing a ride like say a big, long vehicle with lots of seats that visits a number of stops on a route? Yeah, that would be a great idea. We could improve this even further by giving the ride-share vehicle it's own lane, then turn both the wheels and the road surface into metal to reduce friction. BRB, going to the patent office... Not to be too snarky, but as a non-american it has been amazing to watch the…
No, not like that. Trains work well for arterial routes that need to carry large volumes of people along predictable corridors at predictable times of day -- eg., for commuting. And yes America certainly needs to get better at investing in them. But trains don't work at all well for serving smaller volumes of people moving in stochastic patterns at arbitrary times of day. Neither do buses. Cars serve this need very w…
In the future I imagine, every train or bus station would have a small fleet of self-driving cars that people travelling nearby could use on-demand. I think this arrangement has a lot of advantages over using cars point-to-point.
The cars themselves can have a lower maximum speed, and lower range because they don't need to go very far, and lightweight, because they're consequently unlikely to get into high speed crashes. This also means your access road network can take up less space, and be more pedestrianised.
Additionally, because people use these cars for last mile transport, the effective catchment area of a station is much higher allowing them to be more viable even at lower densities, and also allowing less frequent stops to cover an area effectively.
Also, once people are used to using transport-as-a-service interfaces, it's much easier to make them aware of new transport options, and convince them to switch. If someone is opening an app anyway to order a ride to the shops, you can offer them a slightly cheaper journey involving a bus interchange. This in turn allows the networks to be more flexible, as you don't need to worry as much about providing a consistent service pattern for people to learn. So if you notice a lot of people go to the shops on Saturday afternoon, you can add a few buses at that time and people will start using it immediately.
Re: Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, not like that. Trains work well for arterial routes that need to carry large volumes of people along predictable corridors at predictable times of day -- eg., for commuting. And yes America certainly needs to get better at investing in them. But trains don't work at all well for serving smaller volumes of people moving in stochastic patterns at arbitrary times of day. Neither do buses. Cars serve this need very w…
I think self-driving cars can be combined with public transport to serve a lot of these more arbitrary patterns effectively. In the future I imagine, every train or bus station would have a small fleet of self-driving cars that people travelling nearby could use on-demand. I think this arrangement has a lot of advantages over using cars point-to-point. The cars themselves can have a lower maximum speed, and lower ran…
Re: Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, so we definitely agree that automation-driven traffic-less utopia is a red herring! Certainly if personal vehicles are replaced 1:1 by automated personal vehicles, congestion will, on average, get worse. Even if they're replaced by automated taxis -- eliminating the need for parking -- this will lead to at least a ~30% increase in vehicles actively on the road due to empty vehicle movements. And that's before y…
I agree, shared automated small shuttle buses that travel on ad-hoc generated/adapted routes are probably going to be a thing. BTW thanks for this thought-provocing discussion.
Re: Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think self-driving cars can be combined with public transport to serve a lot of these more arbitrary patterns effectively. In the future I imagine, every train or bus station would have a small fleet of self-driving cars that people travelling nearby could use on-demand. I think this arrangement has a lot of advantages over using cars point-to-point. The cars themselves can have a lower maximum speed, and lower ran…
Yes, absolutely, you've got the right idea! I agree with you so much that I can't even find anything to quibble with, which is... unusual. Is this a subject that you're professionally engaged with?
And nope, I have no professional experience with this, I just like trains a bit too much and want more of them. :D
Re: Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow
#68And conversely there are days when the stars seem to align and your commute is unusually short and free of significant time going 0-5 mph. Sure you still crawl, but by comparison it feels great.
Again, this is almost entirely an artifact of human-caused preventable road accidents. I fail to see how, if you accept the premise that driverless cars will dramatically reduce or outright eliminate accidents, traffic will not be permanently improved.
Re: Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow
#69I also see a lot of talk (in other threads) about the eventual banning of drivers in favor of a totally automated driving world. Can no one see the potential problems with this? Even eliminating the potential for government control, what kind of perverse incentives might arrive for companies? Taking you on routes with more stores as a form of advertising is something I can think of just off the top of my head.
Not to mention all of that kind of talk is very city-centric. Some people do have legitimate need to go places that don't have roads, or at least mapped roads. Rural places still exist, and it annoys me to see how no one seems to think about these places when talking about driverless vehicles, or banning drivers.
Re: Why driverless cars may mean jams tomorrow
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, absolutely, you've got the right idea! I agree with you so much that I can't even find anything to quibble with, which is... unusual. Is this a subject that you're professionally engaged with?
Haha, thanks. And nope, I have no professional experience with this, I just like trains a bit too much and want more of them. :D
Even more than that, people who like transport often fail to consider it in a holistic context which includes land-use patterns, development typologies, etc. Appreciating the inter-relatedness of these things is not common, even amongst professionals. Maybe especially amongst professionals.
Anyhow, if you happen to be a coder and would like some professional experience with this, give me a shout. I run www.podaris.com, and we're trying to make it easier to build cities the way you like 'em.