81–88 of 88 posts
Self-driving cars are a solution for a problem that has already been solved. Build trains. But of course, this doesn't benefit automakers, requires a move towards high-density housing that NIMBY's and certain classes of investors oppose, so instead we'll create an entirely new class of problems by allowing these companies to unleash their insufficient technology on public roads.
/s
Self-driving cars are a solution for a problem that has already been solved. Build trains. But of course, this doesn't benefit automakers, requires a move towards high-density housing that NIMBY's and certain classes of investors oppose, so instead we'll create an entirely new class of problems by allowing these companies to unleash their insufficient technology on public roads.
Fast forward ten years. They are trains, sans every major problem with trains: almost no fixed infrastructure, no last mile problem, no expensive human driver/conductor, yet similar vehicle construction cost per seat. Eventually they'll block off a lane of every major freeway and you'll be able to go anywhere in the country at an average of 160 mph, with no need for bulldozers, eminent domain, new viaducts, years of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is possible, and it could be extremely effective, but not straight way. 1. exists concept of linear city, and exists few implementations, most known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volgograd 2. In linear city, possible to create just one line of train, and station every mile, and all other transport muscular, or something like pneumatic-mail and open conveyors. In some cases, could be effective to make rectangular…
The concept of a linear city only works if you completely ignore real world geography like hills, rivers, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fast forward ten years. They are trains, sans every major problem with trains: almost no fixed infrastructure, no last mile problem, no expensive human driver/conductor, yet similar vehicle construction cost per seat. Eventually they'll block off a lane of every major freeway and you'll be able to go anywhere in the country at an average of 160 mph, with no need for bulldozers, eminent domain, new viaducts, years of…
I would argue that asphalt has a much shorter life span than rail infrastructure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate seeing this premise. It is railfan navelgazing. I like rails and ride them frequently. Rails are not the future for passenger commuting, outside of the middle-long distances that heavy rails serve. What AV addresses is primarily a last-mile problem. Last mile is all about the personal transport solution, and cars are just the largest of those. The physics and geometry of cars means that they are more expensive…
The last mile is only a problem because people live in single-family housing zones, where there is not enough density for mass transit. We created this type of land use for several mostly not good reasons. Trains are far more efficient than car infrastructure. Why do commuters need a self driving car if there are trains that run by your block every 5 minutes, and get you to your office block in 10-20?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate seeing this premise. It is railfan navelgazing. I like rails and ride them frequently. Rails are not the future for passenger commuting, outside of the middle-long distances that heavy rails serve. What AV addresses is primarily a last-mile problem. Last mile is all about the personal transport solution, and cars are just the largest of those. The physics and geometry of cars means that they are more expensive…
The last mile is only a problem because people live in single-family housing zones, where there is not enough density for mass transit. We created this type of land use for several mostly not good reasons. Trains are far more efficient than car infrastructure. Why do commuters need a self driving car if there are trains that run by your block every 5 minutes, and get you to your office block in 10-20?
Well, you know, we all want to change the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate seeing this premise. It is railfan navelgazing. I like rails and ride them frequently. Rails are not the future for passenger commuting, outside of the middle-long distances that heavy rails serve. What AV addresses is primarily a last-mile problem. Last mile is all about the personal transport solution, and cars are just the largest of those. The physics and geometry of cars means that they are more expensive…
The last mile is only a problem because people live in single-family housing zones, where there is not enough density for mass transit. We created this type of land use for several mostly not good reasons. Trains are far more efficient than car infrastructure. Why do commuters need a self driving car if there are trains that run by your block every 5 minutes, and get you to your office block in 10-20?
Unfortunately when solving a problem you have to address reality and not some non-existent ideal.
Self driving cars are a much more realistic solution than getting billions of people to move to an expensive city where they’ll have 5% as much space as they’re used to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a couple misunderstandings here. > The robotaxi can only compete on price because that's its only advantage. That's one advantage. Another is that that it's a third option to the traditional dichotomy of driving yourself or be driven by a stranger. It's worth taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture. Robotaxis aren't the end-all-be-all for anyone. It's just a bounded problem domain with some promi…
People seem to completely forget how valuable having a secure place to store your things is. If you travel to the White House using public transportation with a baby carriage - well, you can't. There is no place to leave it, and they won't let it in. (Same for your purse, or a backpack, or even a water bottle.) If you take a car you can leave all that in your car. Of course it's not easy finding a place to put your c…