What if we had one BIG self driving car that dozens of people could comfortablely sit inside while traveling on a shared route?
We could have multiple vehicles traveling that same route so you're almost always assured a ride without waiting long. And as were saving a lot of money with predictable road wear, less pollution and less accidents, we could probably make the rides very affordable, if not free. Last thought, kind of out there , but we could even have one person sit at the front of the bus and look out a window - If they saw a child, animal or some other potential issue on the road ahead, they could see it well ahead of time and hit some sort of hand or foot button that slows the vehicle to a stop temporarily so there aren't any software related accidents from the self driving vehicle that result in injury or loss of life.
It will be like an uber... But for all of US. We'll call it UBUS!
That's actually...kinda genius. It's not just fresh thinking: it's a scalable and green solution to a real problem. I think you could really make a difference with this idea. Would you like to work out some ways we can make life worse for the working class while we implement it?
Up until very recently all train route planning in Sweden was done manually with huge sheets of paper and rulers. Scheduling trains is a very hard problem due to the inability for one train to pass another in many places and the constantly high congestion. Any change in the schedule affects basically the entire rail network.
In computer science it belongs to the class of "NP-hard" problems which are intractable to solve optimally. There are various approximate methods that can be employed to get something that's almost always good enough.
done manually with huge sheets of paper and rulers. Scheduling trains is a very hard problem
Just because it is a hard problem, it doesn't mean it is easier to do with paper and rulers than with algorithms. So the problem being "hard" should be unrelated to Sweden being behind the times.
The problem with train scheduling is that computers don't just make it better. There's a very real chance computers could make it worse or result in approximately the same outcome but not require millions in investment into a new system.
The humans are likely following an algorithm of approximation too. If programmed correctly, the computer would be able to try way more approximations using the same algorithm the humans use, and hence likely find a better solution.
It is of course possible to program a computer badly, so you get worse outcomes than the existing human method. But that is kinda besides the point.
It an investment return problem as much as a technical one. A computer could maybe reduce a team of 6 to a team of 2, saving optimistically 500k/year. The cost of building that system is likely at least ten million, putting a break even at 20 years minimum. When you factor in the costs of maintenance and running the program, it's going to make it take even longer. Also because it's not actually a solvable problem, you have to pick an accuracy level you are comfortable with, too low and you need too many people fixing things anyway, too high and people are cheaper.
I'm having trouble understanding how that relates to the statement about train operators, the ones actually driving the trains because most trains are not autonomous.
Hold up. This gives me an even better idea. What if, and this is totally hypothetical, but instead of self driving cars, we used trains to transport people?
The train could even theoretically transport a whole bunch of people at one time.
Holy shit. I think we are really on to something here.
I really do wonder what the implications of cars moving to electric energy will have on the impact of transportation infrastructure.
For instance I don't believe electricity has the same "scarce-bility"/manipulation as fossil fuels do. The U.S. subsidizes oil so much because it is making the people who pay their campaigns rich. Solar and such are relatively easy compared to drilling your own oil, refining it and making it ready for your vehicle.
So when it gets to the point that it is more expensive for all cars to be gas powered, I think we will see that electricity companies won't hold the same monopoly values at manipulating markets. So instead of saying, I want to pay $X a year in electric to drive my car, I'd rather pay X/3
A city built for cars (no matter if "self driving" or not) has to be built much more spread out. Distances for everything multiply. At the same time that spread out infrastructure leads to heavily mono-directional traffic, making rush hour load much worse.
That is why people in car only cities aren't any faster than cities well designed for public transit. Yes, heavy rail does not cut it alone, that is why there is also light rail, bus lines etc. With all of that, you can get anywhere you need to go, in places that are not primarily or exclusively built for the car.
I don't live in the USA, I live in the Netherlands, infrastructure here is very good, public transport-wise too. It's just that a train can't go to every little village that exists. There is a bus, but it only comes and goes once an hour (which is entirely reasonable for my village), which severely affects the travel time.
And self driving cars will do nothing to change anything. I you push for them, more than for cars currently, cities in the Netherlands will be much worse places and traffic will get much worse as well.
Cars are of course part of the mobility equation, especially in rural regions with small settlements. 1 hour connections can still be perfectly fine for commuting but it can only be a supporting service there. The story is completely different one as soon as you get anywhere close to any major city. In the Netherlands, most people live in such locations.
Ns is wel tof ja maar het kan altijd beter en self driving cars gaan dit probleem niet fixen je kan beter de fiets of een normalen auto pakken en met beteren aansluitingen hoef je geen uur te wachten
After visiting Tokyo, I'm convinced that both can exist. Trains take 95% of the travel and the 5% of the time you need to be someplace specific, car it is.
As for to your door... I was a 10 minute walk to every single destination I needed.
A real self driving car would increase your commute because it would be able to transport children, dogs, sandwiches etc and the overall effect would be a like 30%+ increase in traffic as people buy or rent more self driving trips for people and objects normally not able to rent rides.
The effect would be analogous to "Jevon's Paradox" where more efficiency increases demand.
Some don't, actually. Driverless trains exist, including metro trains. At least two lines of the Paris metro system - namely lines 1 and 4 - are automated.
top 50 comments