Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Automated Vehicles Can't Save Cities

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: Automated Vehicles Can't Save Cities

#11

Post by CodeWriter23 »

Sorry, the figure of 1600 cars per hour is complete and utter bullshit. If just 5 cars get through a signal on a 30 second cycle, that’s 600 cars per hour. For a single intersection. How many intersections are there in a city?

A well designed intersection can easily get 20 cars through per cycle.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of bus lanes and really a fan of light rail. But I really hate this type of hype where basic assumptions don’t pass the smell test.

And if you want to get into some real economics, a system like the LA Metro Authority operates at about 20% Fare Box Recovery. That means for every $1 of fare collected, a subsidy of $4 is required to keep the system running. At least when someone drives their own car, they are actually paying their own way.

Re: Automated Vehicles Can't Save Cities

#12

Post by jackvalentine »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #11

Sorry, the figure of 1600 cars per hour is complete and utter bullshit. If just 5 cars get through a signal on a 30 second cycle, that’s 600 cars per hour. For a single intersection. How many intersections are there in a city? A well designed intersection can easily get 20 cars through per cycle. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of bus lanes and really a fan of light rail. But I really hate this type of hype where basic…

> At least when someone drives their own car, they are actually paying their own way.

Do they? The sheer amount of infrastructure for cars and parking make me question that statement.

Re: Automated Vehicles Can't Save Cities

#13

Post by TheCoelacanth »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #11

Sorry, the figure of 1600 cars per hour is complete and utter bullshit. If just 5 cars get through a signal on a 30 second cycle, that’s 600 cars per hour. For a single intersection. How many intersections are there in a city? A well designed intersection can easily get 20 cars through per cycle. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of bus lanes and really a fan of light rail. But I really hate this type of hype where basic…

The numbers appear to be for how much traffic can pass in a single lane's worth of space. Their numbers make sense for a single traffic lane[1], one subway line[2] and one 2.5 meter (a bit narrower than a standard traffic lane) bike path[3], all of which take up pretty close to the same amount of space.

[1] http://www.mikeontraffic.com/numbers-every-traffic-engineer-...

[2] https://www.thoughtco.com/passenger-capacity-of-transit-2798...

[3] https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/5_Zhou-Xu-Wang-...

Re: Automated Vehicles Can't Save Cities

#14

Post by bob_theslob646 »

What I think the author fails to touch on well is the fact that transit is not sexy or at least not sexy yet, at least in the United States.

Have you ever noticed that most car commercials capture the essence of a confident person in control of their own destiny? I know it sounds like b* but they all do it.

The reality is drivers are in control of their own destiny if they were driving on a road by themselves.

The United States has to figure out a way to make mass transit sexy sooner rather than later,otherwise it will never work.

The hilarious thing is investing in High-Speed Rail maybe one of the best things that the US can do because not only will it make people happier if they run as efficiently as they do in Japan but the cost of goods could severely go down therefore eliminating some poverty which the u.s. census has reported that transportation or rather lack of access to it has been linked to poverty.

Re: Automated Vehicles Can't Save Cities

#15

Post by bob_theslob646 »

eesmith wrote: post #3
jasonmaydie wrote: post #2

cities don't exist in a vacuum. Many towns die because something essential like a coal mine was removed from the economy, just like removing cars (no matter how noble) could kill some cities too.

I wasn't able to read the article. It was completely blank in my browser. Could you say who is saying that we should remove cars from a city, even to the point that it would kill the city? Because I've not heard anyone propose that. I've heard of car-free regions of a city, and cities like Venice which effectively had no private cars, and bans on some cars (like gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles in favor of elect…

You have to physically click the page on it in order for it to load. The page is interactive even though the it doesn't explicitly say so. The New York Times assumes you know.

Re: Automated Vehicles Can't Save Cities

#16

Post by eesmith »

bob_theslob646 wrote: post #15
eesmith wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't able to read the article. It was completely blank in my browser. Could you say who is saying that we should remove cars from a city, even to the point that it would kill the city? Because I've not heard anyone propose that. I've heard of car-free regions of a city, and cities like Venice which effectively had no private cars, and bans on some cars (like gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles in favor of elect…

You have to physically click the page on it in order for it to load. The page is interactive even though the it doesn't explicitly say so. The New York Times assumes you know.

Interesting. It's acting different now than yesterday, so perhaps they fixed something?

Thanks for pointing it out.

Clicking on a bajillion one-sentence pages might win a design award but it's awful to read. I didn't.

Re: Automated Vehicles Can't Save Cities

#17

Post by CodeWriter23 »

jackvalentine wrote: post #12
CodeWriter23 wrote: post #11

Sorry, the figure of 1600 cars per hour is complete and utter bullshit. If just 5 cars get through a signal on a 30 second cycle, that’s 600 cars per hour. For a single intersection. How many intersections are there in a city? A well designed intersection can easily get 20 cars through per cycle. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of bus lanes and really a fan of light rail. But I really hate this type of hype where basic…

> At least when someone drives their own car, they are actually paying their own way. Do they? The sheer amount of infrastructure for cars and parking make me question that statement.

Taxes

Re: Automated Vehicles Can't Save Cities

#18

Post by CodeWriter23 »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #13
CodeWriter23 wrote: post #11

Sorry, the figure of 1600 cars per hour is complete and utter bullshit. If just 5 cars get through a signal on a 30 second cycle, that’s 600 cars per hour. For a single intersection. How many intersections are there in a city? A well designed intersection can easily get 20 cars through per cycle. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of bus lanes and really a fan of light rail. But I really hate this type of hype where basic…

The numbers appear to be for how much traffic can pass in a single lane's worth of space. Their numbers make sense for a single traffic lane[1], one subway line[2] and one 2.5 meter (a bit narrower than a standard traffic lane) bike path[3], all of which take up pretty close to the same amount of space. [1] http://www.mikeontraffic.com/numbers-every-traffic-engineer-... [2] https://www.thoughtco.com/passenger-capacit…

A single lane does not tell the traffic story for an entire city.

Re: Automated Vehicles Can't Save Cities

#19

Post by TheCoelacanth »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #18
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The numbers appear to be for how much traffic can pass in a single lane's worth of space. Their numbers make sense for a single traffic lane[1], one subway line[2] and one 2.5 meter (a bit narrower than a standard traffic lane) bike path[3], all of which take up pretty close to the same amount of space. [1] http://www.mikeontraffic.com/numbers-every-traffic-engineer-... [2] https://www.thoughtco.com/passenger-capacit…

A single lane does not tell the traffic story for an entire city.

It would be nonsensical to state numbers for the total number of people can who move through an entire city because it is heavily dependent on how much space is dedicated to each mode of travel. They are making a comparison of how many people who can move through a given amount of space depending on what mode of transportation they are using.

Re: Automated Vehicles Can't Save Cities

#20

Post by jackvalentine »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #17
jackvalentine wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At least when someone drives their own car, they are actually paying their own way. Do they? The sheer amount of infrastructure for cars and parking make me question that statement.

Taxes

That doesn’t really answer the question.
Post reply on HN