Autonomous vehicles someday,

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: DBMaster
Tempest, good arguments. I like a civil discourse.

HerrStig, yes, I (meaning me, can't speak for others) have given up on overall improvement of driving skills. Even if some had good skills, the ones that are too distracted to even shut off a turn signal after a lane change would foul it all up. The vast majority of drivers would have to become good at the activity to see improvement there. Pardon my use of colloquialism, but it ain't gonna happen.

My fondness for the concept of automated roads is just that. It's a fantasy. I'd rather enjoy my fantasy a bit than expend a lot of energy shooting down the concept. Hey, folks, I KNOW that this is not going to become reality.

Interestingly enough, some of the companies most public in their support of telecommuting are backpedaling a bit these days. I'm sure you have heard that in the news this week. I can think if a few ways in which companies can support and encourage carpooling and flexible hours, but again, I don't see it making much difference in the growing traffic issues in areas like mine. At some point there is critical mass.
I saw the "backpedal" written up in the WSJ, as I recall. The several lobbys which always want to build more roads, including the trucking industry and the construction industry, don't make a lot of dough on mass transit.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: Tempest
There isn't a mass transit system in America that makes money, much less breaks even. This makes these systems a part of welfare. Because mass transit systems don't have to make money and are subsidized by people that don't use them, the resources they consume WILL be poorly allocated.

The reason they loose money is because most people don't want to use them. Third party observers, that want to impose their own view of how society should work, don't like that and continue to build these monuments to themselves that the general population doesn't want.


This is NOT a point of view, it is a fact.
Never generalize, say the Jesuits, new info out today indicated that AMTRAK made pretty good money on their short haul and long haul service in the Northeast. Ridership up and profits along with it. So long as gas prices remain a burden on the middle class, commuter rail WILL make money where there is decent service. Info on profits is from a Brookings Institution report released yesterday.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: DBMaster
OK. Does it matter whether it's a POV or FACT? If every person commuting in NYC drove an individual car, like we do here in DFW, what would that look like? So, NYC has to be able to provide that mobility. So, perhaps it's not as easy to backtrack to the cost of highway travel, but many NYC-based companies owe their existence to mass transit. And, the employees owe their livelihoods, directly or indirectly, to mass transit.

Not everything can be boiled down to an income statement or balance sheet.

This is truly a no-win sort of argument for me because it's all based upon opinions. You know what they say about opinions, don't you?
The commuter rail system which servs the greater NYC area has been in place for a hundred years. The Long Island Railroad, Tunervillle Trolly that it may be, gets folks around that area in pretty good fashion. The commuter rail service extends well into Connecticut.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: DBMaster
OK, folks who live to shoot down ideas...

What do YOU think will be the long term solution to the eventual complete gridlock in almost all metropolitan areas of this country?

Just learn to live with it?
Leave for work at 4:00am?
Expect logical, courteous, and sensible behavior from "The American People?"
Pretty sure ya can't just tax 'em into other "alternatives" if the alternatives are not there. After all, ya gotta keep 'em working to pay the taxes that feed the handout class.

 

[DBMaster]

"Handout Class"

LOL!

I know about the history of big city mass transit systems. I guess I just brought that up to shed some doubt on the philosophy that mass transit is bad because it doesn't turn a profit. As I mentioned earlier, it's not really a viable alternative for areas like mine. It serves some people for whom individual cars are not an option and it is handy at times when attending sporting events at the American Airlines Center.

I think the mistake is in thinking that ANY long term solution will be offered. Places like L.A., D.C., S.F., etc already have horrendous traffic that sucks the life and creativity from those workers forced to endure it daily. Coming soon to a highway near you!

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Never generalize, say the Jesuits, new info out today indicated that AMTRAK made pretty good money on their short haul and long haul service in the Northeast. Ridership up and profits along with it. So long as gas prices remain a burden on the middle class, commuter rail WILL make money where there is decent service. Info on profits is from a Brookings Institution report released yesterday.


Amtrack is still bleeding $1.2 billion a year. It's a welfare program. They lose over $80 million a year just on food service.

Amtrack should be dissolved and the profitable routes sold to private operators.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Everyone uses roads, even if they don't own a car. The building materials in their house, the food they eat, the plumber that comes to their house to fix a toilet...that all gets to the consumer via roads. The same is not true of a mass transit system.


Everyone uses public transit too. Those people who work for or with you that doesn't drive to work every day in big cities uses them indirectly, reducing road congestion for your driving, reduce competition for parking spaces so you can park, reduce fuel consumption so you don't have to pay as much for fuel, and reduce transportation expense so they can work for less and provide you with the same services. Landlord use them because these public transits increase their property's value, whether tearing the lower density one down for higher density one, or increase in rental income as is.

If you want to discuss whether it is profitable or not, that's a different issue than "not everyone use them". I do not see any difference between that and a road: some of them are heavily used and congested, while others are sitting empty most of the time.

Quote:
The NYC subway system was originally a private enterprise, until it was taken over by the city.


Like I said before, it is a matter of running an organization with a priority in profit vs priority in utilization. If left as a private enterprise, it will not be expanded to increase capacity, it would just keep raising fare (to say $20 each trip, more than a taxi ride), and there would be waste capacity and idling. In public ownership its priority would be to move as many people as possible to relieve traffic congestion and set a fare so that it will maximize the use instead of leaving empty seats and empty trains.

You can compare this to a toll road that has only 2 lanes vs a free highway that has 6 lanes, and their profit margins vs its ability to move cars and people around.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: DBMaster
OK, folks who live to shoot down ideas...

What do YOU think will be the long term solution to the eventual complete gridlock in almost all metropolitan areas of this country?

Just learn to live with it?
Leave for work at 4:00am?
Expect logical, courteous, and sensible behavior from "The American People?"


Autonomous vehicles would not reduce gridlock or traffic, just like a free cab ride to work would not reduce traffic. They would reduce parking problem by directing them to park far away from high density places.

 

[DBMaster]

I beg to differ. I cars were computer controlled they would match speed, merge smoothly, leave proper following distance, etc. They would also not have their craniums in rectal storage.

Again, this is fantasy, but a computer controlled roadway could handle lots of traffic and still flow smoothly.

 

[DBMaster]

Actually, I'll make an amendment to the part of my statement about "proper" following distance. An automated roadway would need to leave only enough following distance to allow for merging and lane changing. Lane changing would be minimal. Cars entering the highway would be properly spaced and going the correct speed to fill the gaps left in traffic.

When was the last time you saw a line of cars smoothly enter the highway. I'll venture the answer is "never in my life."

 

[Vikas]

Did you guys watch Top Gear's take on the autonomous cars? "Completely stupid!" said those three knuckle heads! "So my car is in the office but I am still at home! What good is that?"

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Never generalize, say the Jesuits, new info out today indicated that AMTRAK made pretty good money on their short haul and long haul service in the Northeast. Ridership up and profits along with it. So long as gas prices remain a burden on the middle class, commuter rail WILL make money where there is decent service. Info on profits is from a Brookings Institution report released yesterday.


Amtrack is still bleeding $1.2 billion a year. It's a welfare program. They lose over $80 million a year just on food service.

Amtrack should be dissolved and the profitable routes sold to private operators.
What's it cost us in "real dollars" to keep the interstates going?