Driverless cars

[RedScare]

My solutions for helping the poor are far better than your solutions. I do not propose abandoning buses for a few extra miles of rail. Just using Harris County as an example, a poor worker with a bicycle and a METRO card can get anywhere in the county, except for the far northwestern reaches. Your rail solutions will never give a poor person that kind of mobility.

[kylejack]

Whatever would I do without the capability to go to Walmart, Best Buy, and Home Depot all in one trip?

[livincinco]

I'm going to attempt to try to get this thread back on topic, my points are as follows:

 

- Driverless car technology is progressing rapidly.  I expect that assisted driving such as the type described in the quoted article will be widely available on new cars within five years.  I expect full driverless technology will be widely available on new cars within 15 years.

 

- I expect that the public will adopt this technology rapidly once it has been accepted as safe and I think that it has significant potential impacts on city planning.  Commuting distances become significantly less burdensome both from the ability to better utilize commute time and the reduced cost due to improved fuel efficiencies.  I expect that this will cause cities to further expand outward.

 

- There is great potential to move to an integrated network with cars being "rented" for short periods of time instead of owned, similar to the program that is being tested in Seoul, which I think has profound impacts on layout of urban areas due to reduced parking requirements.  The ability to schedule a car for a specific time, location and destination would provide a level of individual mobility that is a major leap forward. 

 

Thoughts?

 

 

[RedScare]

I agree. Further, widespread use of driverless technology would likely remove the lure of bigger, less efficient engines for many drivers, improving fuel efficiency even more. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new niche of "commuter cars", small efficient vehicles useful for commuting, and not much else. They luxurious vehicles would be for weekend driving.

[livincinco]

I agree. Further, widespread use of driverless technology would likely remove the lure of bigger, less efficient engines for many drivers, improving fuel efficiency even more. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new niche of "commuter cars", small efficient vehicles useful for commuting, and not much else. They luxurious vehicles would be for weekend driving.

 

Agreed.  Definitely seems possible that commuter cars could contain a functional workspace inside which could be utilized while the car is under automated control. 

 

I think that the safety factor would help smaller cars too.  Some of the resistance to moving to a smaller car is the fear of injury in case of impact with a much larger vehicle.  Reducing or removing that concern could breakdown a lot of that resistance.

[Slick Vik]

My solutions for helping the poor are far better than your solutions. I do not propose abandoning buses for a few extra miles of rail. Just using Harris County as an example, a poor worker with a bicycle and a METRO card can get anywhere in the county, except for the far northwestern reaches. Your rail solutions will never give a poor person that kind of mobility.

 

Don't put words in my mouth. When did I say I would abandon buses? Buses are a part of a transportation system, but just a part. Go look at all the public transportation system in the world, they are based with rail being the main functioning component, with buses feeding into it and sometimes bus rapid transit as a complement. I can name 10 off the top of my head

 

NYC

Chicago

Vancouver

Toronto

Madrid

Barcelona

New Delhi

Mexico City

London

Berlin

Barcelona

Madrid

 

and many many more

 

Is there something special about Houston that makes it different from the rest of the developed world? Or is it a problem of a stubborn mindset? I'm going with the latter.

[Slick Vik]

Spend some time in developing countries and you'll get an idea of extreme poverty.  Neither one of us is trying to minimize the issues that result from being poor, but August is right.  Poor in the US and poor in India or Africa are completely different.  It's like trying to compare the destruction caused by the building of a highway with the destruction caused by carpet bombing.

 

I've spent years of my life in developing countries so I know what extreme poverty is. That being said, being poor sucks, no matter where you are.

 

And that comparison isn't far off for neighborhoods that got totally leveled.

[livincinco]

Don't put words in my mouth. When did I say I would abandon buses? Buses are a part of a transportation system, but just a part. Go look at all the public transportation system in the world, they are based with rail being the main functioning component, with buses feeding into it and sometimes bus rapid transit as a complement. I can name 10 off the top of my head

 

NYC

Chicago

Vancouver

Toronto

Madrid

Barcelona

New Delhi

Mexico City

London

Berlin

Barcelona

Madrid

 

and many many more

 

Is there something special about Houston that makes it different from the rest of the developed world? Or is it a problem of a stubborn mindset? I'm going with the latter.

 

The big difference is that virtually all of those are subways systems, not street level light rail.  That's a completely different conversation that we've never entered into because I'm not aware of any real discussion about Houston building a subway.

[Slick Vik]

The big difference is that virtually all of those are subways systems, not street level light rail.  That's a completely different conversation that we've never entered into because I'm not aware of any real discussion about Houston building a subway.

 

Fair enough. In 1983 houston had the funds to build a heavy rail from downtown down down galleria past westpark, but then decided to make a referendum for a much bigger rail system, which lost, so it ended up nothing got built.

 

That being said there is quite a bit of light rail expansion in the USA.

 

Minneapolis

Denver

Seattle

Orlando

Dallas

Salt Lake City

Los Angeles

Charlotte

 

and streetcar

 

Detroit

San Antonio

 

Probably some more but those are the ones that come to mind

 

Also what contributes to high costs for houston light rail is a draconian law that says for any rail construction the entire road must be repaved. That rule helped put the streetcars out of business way back when as well.

[livincinco]

Fair enough. In 1983 houston had the funds to build a heavy rail from downtown down down galleria past westpark, but then decided to make a referendum for a much bigger rail system, which lost, so it ended up nothing got built.

 

That being said there is quite a bit of light rail expansion in the USA.

 

Minneapolis

Denver

Seattle

Orlando

Dallas

Salt Lake City

Los Angeles

Charlotte

 

and streetcar

 

Detroit

San Antonio

 

Probably some more but those are the ones that come to mind

 

Also what contributes to high costs for houston light rail is a draconian law that says for any rail construction the entire road must be repaved. That rule helped put the streetcars out of business way back when as well.

 

This gets back to the whole BRT vs. LRT conversation that we've had on previous threads.  With the possible exception of LA, none of those cities really have sufficient density/demand to warrant LRT.  It really becomes a marketing project, designed to present the city in a particular image.

 

Houston has chosen to invest heavily in the parks system and is using that as its tool to market the city.  It's working really well.  Discovery Green has been a huge hit and I think that the redo of the parks along Buffalo Bayou, including Allen's Landing are going to have the same kind of impact.  I'd much rather have the city continue to spend in that way while expanding the bus system for those that really need it for financial reasons.

 

The area around Market Square park is revitalizing very nicely right now and LRT gets a lot of credit for that, but I think that it's also a fair question to ask how much of that credit should go to the renovation of the park. 

[august948]

I suspect you've never been poor.

I grew up poor. Qualified for free lunches all through elementary, middle and high school. It's a primary reason why I've been moderately successful to-date.

As poor as we were, I've seen poor in other countries and there was no comparison.

[kylejack]

The big difference is that virtually all of those are subways systems, not street level light rail.  That's a completely different conversation that we've never entered into because I'm not aware of any real discussion about Houston building a subway.

 

Opposition to rail from Culberson and company forces smaller baby steps to be taken with rail. Rome wasn't built in a day.

[Slick Vik]

This gets back to the whole BRT vs. LRT conversation that we've had on previous threads.  With the possible exception of LA, none of those cities really have sufficient density/demand to warrant LRT.  It really becomes a marketing project, designed to present the city in a particular image.

 

Houston has chosen to invest heavily in the parks system and is using that as its tool to market the city.  It's working really well.  Discovery Green has been a huge hit and I think that the redo of the parks along Buffalo Bayou, including Allen's Landing are going to have the same kind of impact.  I'd much rather have the city continue to spend in that way while expanding the bus system for those that really need it for financial reasons.

 

The area around Market Square park is revitalizing very nicely right now and LRT gets a lot of credit for that, but I think that it's also a fair question to ask how much of that credit should go to the renovation of the park. 

 

BRT is okay in only two situations

 

1. Not a high demand

2. No bridges, tunnels during construction, as these are expensive regardless of if you build LRT or BRT

 

If one of the two above is not true, BRT isn't worth it. If #1 is not true, BRT is simply inefficient. I've seen it for myself twice, in Bogota and Istanbul. The buses are full, they hold only so many people, many people get left out waiting for the next one. Once demand is at that level, rail is much more efficient because of the number of cars you can hook on to each other and the speed of deceleration and acceleration (assuming grade seperation).

[livincinco]

Opposition to rail from Culberson and company forces smaller baby steps to be taken with rail. Rome wasn't built in a day.

 

But light rail instead of subways isn't really a baby step.  It's a completely separate set of infrastructure, especially if you're building the light rail in the corridors that would potentially be best suited for subways. 

[Slick Vik]

But light rail instead of subways isn't really a baby step.  It's a completely separate set of infrastructure, especially if you're building the light rail in the corridors that would potentially be best suited for subways. 

 

I think maybe he meant in terms of costs, because a subway is 3 times as expensive as an elevated or ground level rail. Also as far as demand for light rail if referendums were passed to build it then it's fair to say a demand was there to have it built.

[kylejack]

But light rail instead of subways isn't really a baby step.  It's a completely separate set of infrastructure, especially if you're building the light rail in the corridors that would potentially be best suited for subways. 

 

Sure it is, just like the early street cars of Manhattan were baby steps that prepared a city for subways. Anyway, I find your logic puzzling. We shouldn't build subways because there isn't the political will for it? If that's your standard, then we should build light rail, because clearly we do have the political will for that.

[livincinco]

Sure it is, just like the early street cars of Manhattan were baby steps that prepared a city for subways. Anyway, I find your logic puzzling. We shouldn't build subways because there isn't the political will for it? If that's your standard, then we should build light rail, because clearly we do have the political will for that.

 

Sorry, I'm looking at it from a cost/infrastructure standpoint.

 

If you hypothetically spend $100 million to install a mile of light rail, you have no opportunity to utilize that cost towards the cost of a subway.  It's a complete teardown and rebuild.  There's no efficiency that you've gained in that process.

 

I meant baby steps in terms of an initial investment that has the potential of added value with additional investment.   In that context, the Main Street line was a baby step because of the additional value that is theoretically gained as additional lines are added to that network.

[Slick Vik]

Sorry, I'm looking at it from a cost/infrastructure standpoint.

 

If you hypothetically spend $100 million to install a mile of light rail, you have no opportunity to utilize that cost towards the cost of a subway.  It's a complete teardown and rebuild.  There's no efficiency that you've gained in that process.

 

I meant baby steps in terms of an initial investment that has the potential of added value with additional investment.   In that context, the Main Street line was a baby step because of the additional value that is theoretically gained as additional lines are added to that network.

 

In that sense the 1983 heavy rail line not being built was a catastrophe for Houston public transportation, that could've been the beginning of a heavy rail network; once people started riding it they may have enjoyed it and demanded more. The 1991 monorail I'm not so sure that more monorail would've been built but I think more rail in general could've been built off that network. Monorail really isn't a popular technology worldwide. Either way it's unfortunate neither got built and the network got pushed back 30-40 years (at least).

[RedScare]

In that sense the 1983 heavy rail line not being built was a catastrophe for Houston public transportation, that could've been the beginning of a heavy rail network; once people started riding it they may have enjoyed it and demanded more. The 1991 monorail I'm not so sure that more monorail would've been built but I think more rail in general could've been built off that network. Monorail really isn't a popular technology worldwide. Either way it's unfortunate neither got built and the network got pushed back 30-40 years (at least).

 

No. It wasn't. That system was a boondoggle. I've stated this over and over, and explained why, but people like you ignore it, and keep saying it was a catastrophe. So, now I will simply tell you you were wrong. Since I voted on it and you were not alive yet, I know better.

[jketch]

BRT is okay in only two situations

 

1. Not a high demand

2. No bridges, tunnels during construction, as these are expensive regardless of if you build LRT or BRT

 

If one of the two above is not true, BRT isn't worth it. If #1 is not true, BRT is simply inefficient. I've seen it for myself twice, in Bogota and Istanbul. The buses are full, they hold only so many people, many people get left out waiting for the next one. Once demand is at that level, rail is much more efficient because of the number of cars you can hook on to each other and the speed of deceleration and acceleration (assuming grade seperation).

 

The systems have enormous ridership in Bogota and Istanbul though. The Istanbul Metrobus line has a daily ridership of 800,000 equal to that of the entire Washington Metro system on just a single line. A system like that is going to be crowded whether you put people on trains or buses. TransMilenio in Bogota has the same issue. It has a daily ridership of 1.6 million people with only 54 miles of bus lines. For comparison the New York Subway carries 5.4 million people per day on 209 miles of routes, so the Bogota system actually manages to carry more people per length of route than the New York system does. There's no way any system in Houston would even begin to approach the ridership numbers for either of these systems, at least it grew to cover the entire city with thousands of miles of routes.

[Slick Vik]

No. It wasn't. That system was a boondoggle. I've stated this over and over, and explained why, but people like you ignore it, and keep saying it was a catastrophe. So, now I will simply tell you you were wrong. Since I voted on it and you were not alive yet, I know better.

 

A thorough public transportation system is a boondoggle?

[Slick Vik]

The systems have enormous ridership in Bogota and Istanbul though. The Istanbul Metrobus line has a daily ridership of 800,000 equal to that of the entire Washington Metro system on just a single line. A system like that is going to be crowded whether you put people on trains or buses. TransMilenio in Bogota has the same issue. It has a daily ridership of 1.6 million people with only 54 miles of bus lines. For comparison the New York Subway carries 5.4 million people per day on 209 miles of routes, so the Bogota system actually manages to carry more people per length of route than the New York system does. There's no way any system in Houston would even begin to approach the ridership numbers for either of these systems, at least it grew to cover the entire city with thousands of miles of routes.

 

I've been to both, and at this point buses are inefficient for the ridership demand. People push and shove to get on and many many people get left for minutes, hourts, etc especially the elderly and disabled. This is the tipping point when you need rail. Bogota has had protests for rail. BRT in this case played its purpose, a good starter line and in case of increased demand then rail is necessary.

[livincinco]

A thorough public transportation system is a boondoggle?

 

Aren't you an actuary?  Every proposal needs to be considered on it's relative merits, risks and cost.  If I'm building a house, I may agree to build the house at a cost of $200k but walk away if the cost is projected to be $500k or I may get a quote of $200k and realize that there's no way it will get completed at that price without significant overruns and choose to walk away. I would hope that the government would treat an infrastructure project the same way.

[livincinco]

I've been to both, and at this point buses are inefficient for the ridership demand. People push and shove to get on and many many people get left for minutes, hourts, etc especially the elderly and disabled. This is the tipping point when you need rail. Bogota has had protests for rail. BRT in this case played its purpose, a good starter line and in case of increased demand then rail is necessary.

 

And Bogota is...wait for it...converting certain high demand lines from BRT to...a subway, not LRT.

[RedScare]

A thorough public transportation system is a boondoggle?

 

There was nothing thorough about that rail. It was one line, the cost was $1.3 Billion in 1983 dollars ($3.04 Billion in 2013 dollars), and was a huge waste of money.

 

Here's a face for your comment.   

[Slick Vik]

There was nothing thorough about that rail. It was one line, the cost was $1.3 Billion in 1983 dollars ($3.04 Billion in 2013 dollars), and was a huge waste of money.

 

Here's a face for your comment.   

 

I thought the funds for the line were available, but the referendum was for an expanded system beyond that which would require additional funding, and when that didn't go through, nothing got built. At least that's what I've read. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[samagon]

The big difference is that virtually all of those are subways systems, not street level light rail.  That's a completely different conversation that we've never entered into because I'm not aware of any real discussion about Houston building a subway.

 

Manila has above ground rail

 

Anyway, buses and rail aren't driverless vehicles, some subways operate driverless, but they aren't really driverless, they are just remotely operated. We can call them Unmanned Tracked Vehicles, or UTVs.

 

I guess the underground thingy in IAH is a true driverless vehicle. When we were kids our parents used to take us to the airport and we'd just ride around in that thing, I guess my sister and I were easily amused. 

 

And besides, the premise of a driverless car vs a driverless public transport, that's completely different. There's no privacy, what if the guy next to you decides to call his wife and have a personal conversation with her? If he were doing so from his driverless car, it would be, or could be an intimate discussion, or a hate fueled fight, but not so easy on public transport. Additionally, I don't want to think of the ways some drivers might 'relax' if they don't have to actually drive and have access to the internet. Does anyone want someone on public versions of driverless vehicles to do this? No thanks.

[Slick Vik]

And Bogota is...wait for it...converting certain high demand lines from BRT to...a subway, not LRT.

 

I'm okay with that. I prefer a subway too, but light rail is the best we can get so my hands are tied. Either is better than a bus.

[mfastx]

No. It wasn't. That system was a boondoggle. I've stated this over and over, and explained why, but people like you ignore it, and keep saying it was a catastrophe. So, now I will simply tell you you were wrong. Since I voted on it and you were not alive yet, I know better.

 

I would have liked to see it built, we would certainly have more public transportation ridership than we do now.  It was only one line, yes, but it was the start of a much superior system than the one we are building now. 

 

Alan Kiepper did wonders and created a world class bus system in Houston, it's too bad his rail vision couldn't be realized. 

[august948]

From the chron...

NHTSA releases guidelines for self-driving cars

http://www.chron.com/cars/article/NHTSA-releases-guidelines-for-self-driving-cars-4565757.php