Driverless cars

[livincinco]

From the NY Times last week - article on the impact that driverless cars will have on cities

 

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/disruptions-how-driverless-cars-could-reshape-cities/

[Slick Vik]

From the NY Times last week - article on the impact that driverless cars will have on cities

 

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/disruptions-how-driverless-cars-could-reshape-cities/

 

Not surprised you support the increase of sprawl.

 

Limitations of driverless cars.

 

http://www.humantransit.org/2013/01/driverless-cars-and-the-limitations-of-the-complete-imagined-future.html

[livincinco]

Not surprised you support the increase of sprawl.

 

Limitations of driverless cars.

 

http://www.humantransit.org/2013/01/driverless-cars-and-the-limitations-of-the-complete-imagined-future.html

 

Not sure why reposting an interesting article from the NY Times leads to that comment, but I'll ignore that.  Regardless of whether driverless cars support sprawl or not, they are clearly moving forward.

 

The article that you posted makes an interesting point about evolution, but it seems like he's missing the evolutionary steps that have already occurred and are continuing to develop to make cars more automated.  Power steering, power brakes, cruise control, ABS, automatic seat adjustments, etc. are all things that are now frequently automated in cars but were historically performed by drivers.  Volvo now offers automatic parallel parking, Mercedes offers "steering assist" that can change lanes and Audi offers a series of "driver assistance" features including adaptive cruise control which allows the car to maintain appropriate speeds in stop and go traffic.

 

What are these if not evolutionary steps towards a fully automated car?

[brian0123]

I found the article interesting. However, I doubt you'll be sleeping in your car anytime soon. For one, the cost to rig every single intersection with a server to manage the flow would be astronomical. I'm not sure who would pay for it, but we can't even get free wifi to everyone yet. More likely would be that you drive to the main highway, and turn on driver assist (like cruise control). Secondly, this will require that every car in the US be driverless... meaning that freedom-loving conservatives (this IS 'Merica!) will have to give up their right to drive a car. Seeing as how we still have those that think they should be able to own a cannon in case of a govt takeover, I doubt they'd be willing to part with their Hummers anytime soon for fear that Obama might tell the cars to drive them into the ocean. I agree that driverless cars are coming... I just think it will be a VERY long time before politics and society knows how to actually get the best use out of them.

[mfastx]

The prospect of driverless cars is a very exciting one to say the least.  I dream of a day where a personal vehicle can take you to your destination with absolutely NO input from the driver (other than to input the destination of course)! 

 

It would take an astronomical amount of money to do so though, unfortunately.

[livincinco]

I found the article interesting. However, I doubt you'll be sleeping in your car anytime soon. For one, the cost to rig every single intersection with a server to manage the flow would be astronomical. I'm not sure who would pay for it, but we can't even get free wifi to everyone yet. More likely would be that you drive to the main highway, and turn on driver assist (like cruise control). Secondly, this will require that every car in the US be driverless... meaning that freedom-loving conservatives (this IS 'Merica!) will have to give up their right to drive a car. Seeing as how we still have those that think they should be able to own a cannon in case of a govt takeover, I doubt they'd be willing to part with their Hummers anytime soon for fear that Obama might tell the cars to drive them into the ocean. I agree that driverless cars are coming... I just think it will be a VERY long time before politics and society knows how to actually get the best use out of them.

 

I don't see why this requires every car to be driverless.  Everything that I've read makes it pretty clear that everyone understands that there's an interim state where there are some cars on the road that are driverless and some that don't have that capability.  I do agree with you though that this will continue to be an evolution. 

 

I do think that it's reasonably likely that within 10 years, you'll be able to get on the highway, turn on driver assist and not touch any controls until you get to your exit.  Driving on surface streets will probably be a longer timeline and the full scenario described is probably an even longer timeline than that. 

[brian0123]

I don't see why this requires every car to be driverless.  Everything that I've read makes it pretty clear that everyone understands that there's an interim state where there are some cars on the road that are driverless and some that don't have that capability.  I do agree with you though that this will continue to be an evolution. 

 

I do think that it's reasonably likely that within 10 years, you'll be able to get on the highway, turn on driver assist and not touch any controls until you get to your exit.  Driving on surface streets will probably be a longer timeline and the full scenario described is probably an even longer timeline than that. 

 

Sorry, I was referring to a link in the article where they showed the "ideal" intersection with the millions of cars buzzing through it and no traffic lights and having automated robotic delivery drivers A system like that would require that every car be connected to the system so that the system can control the vehicle.

[JJxvi]

In a world of driverless cars, only a few will own cars and everyone will call for driverless taxis.

[livincinco]

Sorry, I was referring to a link in the article where they showed the "ideal" intersection with the millions of cars buzzing through it and no traffic lights and having automated robotic delivery drivers A system like that would require that every car be connected to the system so that the system can control the vehicle.

 

Oh yeah.  Not holding my breath for that to happen anytime soon...

[Slick Vik]

I don't see why this requires every car to be driverless. Everything that I've read makes it pretty clear that everyone understands that there's an interim state where there are some cars on the road that are driverless and some that don't have that capability. I do agree with you though that this will continue to be an evolution.

I do think that it's reasonably likely that within 10 years, you'll be able to get on the highway, turn on driver assist and not touch any controls until you get to your exit. Driving on surface streets will probably be a longer timeline and the full scenario described is probably an even longer timeline than that.

We will see, but the unfortunate consequence is this will only increase reliance on vehicles and encourage sprawl.

[livincinco]

We will see, but the unfortunate consequence is this will only increase reliance on vehicles and encourage sprawl.

I don't see why this increases reliance on vehicles, because it doesn't remove any of the other options of travel that are frequently discussed on this forum. However, it does make individual vehicles a more attractive choice. It seems like your comment is motivated by concern that if given a choice between fast, effective individual transit and mass transit, many individuals will choose individual transit. I tend to agree with you.

[Slick Vik]

I don't see why this increases reliance on vehicles, because it doesn't remove any of the other options of travel that are frequently discussed on this forum. However, it does make individual vehicles a more attractive choice. It seems like your comment is motivated by concern that if given a choice between fast, effective individual transit and mass transit, many individuals will choose individual transit. I tend to agree with you.

It's not that. It's that the funding will heavily go towards roads and all the hidden costs behind sprawl and mass transit will be ignored as usual. I agree most will take individual transit but if you make a proper transit maybe 25-33% of the people will take mass transit. And that chunk of people matters.

[livincinco]

It's not that. It's that the funding will heavily go towards roads and all the hidden costs behind sprawl and mass transit will be ignored as usual. I agree most will take individual transit but if you make a proper transit maybe 25-33% of the people will take mass transit. And that chunk of people matters.

 

Your statement implies that approx. 2 million people in the Houston area would take mass transit if the appropriate system existed.  I think that it's probably better suited to the ideal mass transit thread, but I'd be very interested to see an analysis on a transit network for Houston that would be consistently used by 2 million people.

[RedScare]

Your statement implies that approx. 2 million people in the Houston area would take mass transit if the appropriate system existed.  I think that it's probably better suited to the ideal mass transit thread, but I'd be very interested to see an analysis on a transit network for Houston that would be consistently used by 2 million people.

 

I would also like to see a ballpark estimate of the cost of this transit system that 2 million people would use. That way, we could compare it to the "hidden costs" of sprawl that is getting thrown out there that no one has put a number on.

[livincinco]

It's not that. It's that the funding will heavily go towards roads and all the hidden costs behind sprawl and mass transit will be ignored as usual. I agree most will take individual transit but if you make a proper transit maybe 25-33% of the people will take mass transit. And that chunk of people matters.

 

Actually, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let's assume that we're just talking about the city and not the metro area.  There are currently six major cities in the United States that achieve a 25% transit ridership - New York, Washington DC, San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago.  Each of those cities has a density that is more than triple the current density of Houston.

 

Both Atlanta and Los Angeles, which have been frequently used as comparisons have a mass transit usage of approx. 11%.

 

My expectation is that a fully developed transit system of the kind discussed in the ideal transit model thread would probably achieve a market share of about 10%.

[mfastx]

Both Atlanta and Los Angeles, which have been frequently used as comparisons have a mass transit usage of approx. 11%.

 

My expectation is that a fully developed transit system of the kind discussed in the ideal transit model thread would probably achieve a market share of about 10%.

 

I think that some solutions in Atlanta and Los Angeles can work well in Houston.  And for a city like Houston, >10% transit ridership is quite good. 

 

We are about halfway there now (about 5%) IIRC.

[Slick Vik]

Actually, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let's assume that we're just talking about the city and not the metro area.  There are currently six major cities in the United States that achieve a 25% transit ridership - New York, Washington DC, San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago.  Each of those cities has a density that is more than triple the current density of Houston.

 

Both Atlanta and Los Angeles, which have been frequently used as comparisons have a mass transit usage of approx. 11%.

 

My expectation is that a fully developed transit system of the kind discussed in the ideal transit model thread would probably achieve a market share of about 10%.

 

Los Angeles is investing heavily in its metro lines. Let's see the share in 2020 when the extension to Santa Monica and Crenshaw Line with LAX connector is done. And even beyond that they are planning a line to Westwood. It could be done sooner but with current funding probably 2030-2035.

[Slick Vik]

I would also like to see a ballpark estimate of the cost of this transit system that 2 million people would use. That way, we could compare it to the "hidden costs" of sprawl that is getting thrown out there that no one has put a number on.

 

Just think about it. If you go about building neighborhoods in the middle of nowhere, there are associated costs with that, just basic infrastructure. Sewage, electricity, roads, etc not to mention highway expansion from those areas into and around the city. Does it make any sense that you keep going further and further away instead of building more in the core which has a lot of the infrastructure already? The reason you don't see many of those costs on the outside is because much of it is subsidized, such as roads, sidewalks, highways, etc. But if you want to build any kind of mass transit, there is immediate outrage of spending of funds. Does that make ANY sense? No.

[livincinco]

Just think about it. If you go about building neighborhoods in the middle of nowhere, there are associated costs with that, just basic infrastructure. Sewage, electricity, roads, etc not to mention highway expansion from those areas into and around the city. Does it make any sense that you keep going further and further away instead of building more in the core which has a lot of the infrastructure already? The reason you don't see many of those costs on the outside is because much of it is subsidized, such as roads, sidewalks, highways, etc. But if you want to build any kind of mass transit, there is immediate outrage of spending of funds. Does that make ANY sense? No.

 

I think that's a reasonable point, but I don't think that its realistic to portray this as an either/or situation.  As I mentioned earlier, it would be a pretty major increase in density if Houston doubles its population inside the loop in the next twenty-five years.  If we're assuming that Houston increases its overall population to 10 million in 2040 as projected then you're still adding over 3 million people into the suburbs which means that you're still going to get increased sprawl.

 

It's exciting that there's a large number of apartments being built inside the loop, but it's still just a small percentage of the annual population increases that Houston experiences.

[Slick Vik]

I think that's a reasonable point, but I don't think that its realistic to portray this as an either/or situation.  As I mentioned earlier, it would be a pretty major increase in density if Houston doubles its population inside the loop in the next twenty-five years.  If we're assuming that Houston increases its overall population to 10 million in 2040 as projected then you're still adding over 3 million people into the suburbs which means that you're still going to get increased sprawl.

 

It's exciting that there's a large number of apartments being built inside the loop, but it's still just a small percentage of the annual population increases that Houston experiences.

 

I agree, the growth is everywhere, but I don't know how much farther out the sprawl can go. I guess grand parkway will create more between 290 and 10, but at some point it will become an increase in overall density once there isn't any more room to go further away. In such a scenario, I believe there should be commuter rails coming into the city, and then light rail in the city as well too, so people can come into town, and then move around once they're in there also. That's all I've ever advocated, an option for people.

[RedScare]

Just think about it. If you go about building neighborhoods in the middle of nowhere, there are associated costs with that, just basic infrastructure. Sewage, electricity, roads, etc not to mention highway expansion from those areas into and around the city. Does it make any sense that you keep going further and further away instead of building more in the core which has a lot of the infrastructure already? The reason you don't see many of those costs on the outside is because much of it is subsidized, such as roads, sidewalks, highways, etc. But if you want to build any kind of mass transit, there is immediate outrage of spending of funds. Does that make ANY sense? No.

 

Those costs are not subsidized. Some of the costs are built into the price of the house. Other costs are carried by the MUD districts that are created to build the water and sewer systems. These costs are very clear in the MUD tax rate that is paid by the homeowner. So, your claim that the costs are "hidden" and that they are subsidized is not correct. They are paid by the people buying the homes.

 

And, these costs are lower than the cost to put all of these new residents inside the loop, as you appear to be suggesting. The only difference is that the higher cost to the homeowner is paid to the builder of the midrise/highrise apartment, as opposed to a MUD district that built new sewer lines. The homeowner still pays these costs. If they are going to pay anyway, they should get to live where they want to, not where you want them to. That's the way we do it in this country.

[RedScare]

I agree, the growth is everywhere, but I don't know how much farther out the sprawl can go. I guess grand parkway will create more between 290 and 10, but at some point it will become an increase in overall density once there isn't any more room to go further away. In such a scenario, I believe there should be commuter rails coming into the city, and then light rail in the city as well too, so people can come into town, and then move around once they're in there also. That's all I've ever advocated, an option for people.

 

What is the difference between 1 million people living in a Houston suburb and 1 million people living in Dallas?

[Slick Vik]

Those costs are not subsidized. Some of the costs are built into the price of the house. Other costs are carried by the MUD districts that are created to build the water and sewer systems. These costs are very clear in the MUD tax rate that is paid by the homeowner. So, your claim that the costs are "hidden" and that they are subsidized is not correct. They are paid by the people buying the homes.

 

And, these costs are lower than the cost to put all of these new residents inside the loop, as you appear to be suggesting. The only difference is that the higher cost to the homeowner is paid to the builder of the midrise/highrise apartment, as opposed to a MUD district that built new sewer lines. The homeowner still pays these costs. If they are going to pay anyway, they should get to live where they want to, not where you want them to. That's the way we do it in this country.

 

Roads, sidewalks, highways, etc are paid by whom?

[RedScare]

Roads, sidewalks, highways, etc are paid by whom?

 

The roads and sidewalks are paid for with the taxes paid by those who purchase the homes in the subdivisions. The roads and sidewalks are then donated to the county. Highways are paid for with taxes on the gasoline bought to drive on them. If you take the rail, you will need no gas, and therefore do not pay for them. Those who drive the most pay the most.

 

I am surprised that you do not know this, since you claim there are "hidden costs" involved. You should know how those costs are paid.

[livincinco]

I agree, the growth is everywhere, but I don't know how much farther out the sprawl can go. I guess grand parkway will create more between 290 and 10, but at some point it will become an increase in overall density once there isn't any more room to go further away. In such a scenario, I believe there should be commuter rails coming into the city, and then light rail in the city as well too, so people can come into town, and then move around once they're in there also. That's all I've ever advocated, an option for people.

 

How far sprawl can go is entirely dependent on the amount of time that someone is willing to travel to work and the location of the business that they are travelling to.  When I lived in Northern California, it was reasonably common for people to commute from Stockton to Silicon Valley, a distance of more than 75 miles.  I wouldn't do it, but that's their choice to make.  I think that it's very likely that Exxon and the businesses in The Woodlands could draw commuters from as far away as Huntsville, that the Energy Corridor could draw from Sealy, and that Generation Park could draw from Cleveland.  I wouldn't be surprised if all of those cities were considered part of the Houston metro by 2040.

[Slick Vik]

How far sprawl can go is entirely dependent on the amount of time that someone is willing to travel to work and the location of the business that they are travelling to.  When I lived in Northern California, it was reasonably common for people to commute from Stockton to Silicon Valley, a distance of more than 75 miles.  I wouldn't do it, but that's their choice to make.  I think that it's very likely that Exxon and the businesses in The Woodlands could draw commuters from as far away as Huntsville, that the Energy Corridor could draw from Sealy, and that Generation Park could draw from Cleveland.  I wouldn't be surprised if all of those cities were considered part of the Houston metro by 2040.

 

They could also take the ACE train.

[Slick Vik]

The roads and sidewalks are paid for with the taxes paid by those who purchase the homes in the subdivisions. The roads and sidewalks are then donated to the county. Highways are paid for with taxes on the gasoline bought to drive on them. If you take the rail, you will need no gas, and therefore do not pay for them. Those who drive the most pay the most.

 

I am surprised that you do not know this, since you claim there are "hidden costs" involved. You should know how those costs are paid.

 

So a developer starts building and the houses are bought before any of the infrastructure has even gone into place? What if nobody bought a single house, where would the money come from?

 

Also, the reason this sprawl took place in the first place was the expanded urban highways that made this possible, which were subsidized decades ago. Nice of you to ignore that.

[livincinco]

They could also take the ACE train.

 

They could, but many choose not to.  ACE has limitations.  It used to run only three trains a day, (they recently added a fourth) so there's a pretty limited window of opportunity.  For years, the last train to leave San Jose was at 5:35 pm.  If you had any possibility of working late, you couldn't take the train.  There's also transit time, ACE stops at ten stations and takes over two hours to go from the San Jose station to the Stockton station without considering the last mile, and driving was about 90 min max, door to door.  The last mile is a significant problem too.  The train comes into downtown San Jose and most of the Silicon Valley businesses are quite a distance away, so riders need to be able to get to their businesses.

 

The last numbers I saw were less than 4,000 riders a day including all stops, but that was before the 4th train was added.

[RedScare]

So a developer starts building and the houses are bought before any of the infrastructure has even gone into place? What if nobody bought a single house, where would the money come from?

 

Also, the reason this sprawl took place in the first place was the expanded urban highways that made this possible, which were subsidized decades ago. Nice of you to ignore that.

 

I ignored it because it is not true. Freeways are virtually never expanded until they are severely overcrowded by the people who bought those suburban homes. They pay for the expansion.

[The Pragmatist]

How far sprawl can go is entirely dependent on the amount of time that someone is willing to travel to work and the location of the business that they are travelling to.  When I lived in Northern California, it was reasonably common for people to commute from Stockton to Silicon Valley, a distance of more than 75 miles.  I wouldn't do it, but that's their choice to make.  I think that it's very likely that Exxon and the businesses in The Woodlands could draw commuters from as far away as Huntsville, that the Energy Corridor could draw from Sealy, and that Generation Park could draw from Cleveland.  I wouldn't be surprised if all of those cities were considered part of the Houston metro by 2040.

 

You're not lying.  I was out in Rohnert Park several times last year, and there were a lot of people commuting into SF and Oakland all the way out from Sebastopol, Santa Rosa, and Windsor judging by the traffic on 101 each morning.