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

21–26 of 26 posts

Re: Automated Vehicles Can't Save Cities

#21

Post by CodeWriter23 »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #19
CodeWriter23 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The figure of 25,000 people/hour in buses makes sense to me in a city like L.A. This is where I'm taking issue with the whole article, their basis for analysis is apples-to-oranges.

Re: Automated Vehicles Can't Save Cities

#22

Post by CodeWriter23 »

jackvalentine wrote: post #20
CodeWriter23 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxes

That doesn’t really answer the question.

How does it not? People pay their taxes, income, sales and use tax, gasoline, whatever form their local government uses to fund roads, and their fair share of the road use comes out of their pocket. So, yes, driving your own car IS actually paying your own way.

Re: Automated Vehicles Can't Save Cities

#23

Post by TheCoelacanth »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #21
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The figure of 25,000 people/hour in buses makes sense to me in a city like L.A. This is where I'm taking issue with the whole article, their basis for analysis is apples-to-oranges.

If you look at the sources I linked they give the estimates of 1900 vehicles per hour as the theoretical maximum capacity for a lane of traffic, 30k people per hour as the maximum capacity for a single subway line and 10k people per hour as the maximum capacity for a 2.5 meter bike path.

Those are all pretty close to the numbers they gave for each mode of transit, so it seems reasonable to assume that they are basing their numbers on something similar to that. That is an apples-to-apples comparison because each of those things takes up very close to the same amount of space.

Re: Automated Vehicles Can't Save Cities

#24

Post by jackvalentine »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #22
jackvalentine wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t really answer the question.

How does it not? People pay their taxes, income, sales and use tax, gasoline, whatever form their local government uses to fund roads, and their fair share of the road use comes out of their pocket. So, yes, driving your own car IS actually paying your own way.

Do people not pay their taxes for public transport too?

You had quite specific numbers for the amount of the journey cost that the user pays for public transport, what are the equivalent numbers for drivers?

My intuition is road and parking projects are so spectacularly expensive I doubt drivers are paying their full costs via petrol excise and registration fees.

Obviously it's different in every city, but if we're going to have a conversation about the merits of subsidizing (or not) public transport then we should probably have figures for comparison on privately driven cars.

"taxes" doesn't cut it.

I can't vouch for the quality of this post, but it illustrates my thinking: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/05/debunking-the...

Perhaps you have better figures.

Re: Automated Vehicles Can't Save Cities

#25

Post by CodeWriter23 »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #23
CodeWriter23 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The figure of 25,000 people/hour in buses makes sense to me in a city like L.A. This is where I'm taking issue with the whole article, their basis for analysis is apples-to-oranges.

If you look at the sources I linked they give the estimates of 1900 vehicles per hour as the theoretical maximum capacity for a lane of traffic, 30k people per hour as the maximum capacity for a single subway line and 10k people per hour as the maximum capacity for a 2.5 meter bike path. Those are all pretty close to the numbers they gave for each mode of transit, so it seems reasonable to assume that they are basing…

I read your sources. Your source, in particular the 1900 cars/lane/hour specifically illustrates the poor quality of this article, where the author tries to take us into an alternate universe where the theoretical maximum flow of passenger vehicles is 1600/CITY/hour.

Re: Automated Vehicles Can't Save Cities

#26

Post by TheCoelacanth »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #25
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at the sources I linked they give the estimates of 1900 vehicles per hour as the theoretical maximum capacity for a lane of traffic, 30k people per hour as the maximum capacity for a single subway line and 10k people per hour as the maximum capacity for a 2.5 meter bike path. Those are all pretty close to the numbers they gave for each mode of transit, so it seems reasonable to assume that they are basing…

I read your sources. Your source, in particular the 1900 cars/lane/hour specifically illustrates the poor quality of this article, where the author tries to take us into an alternate universe where the theoretical maximum flow of passenger vehicles is 1600/CITY/hour.

The author never stated 1600/city/hour. That is an inference you are making.
Post reply on HN