Self-driving cars could “make congestion dramatically worse,” warns a headline in the Atlantic‘s CityLab. Simulations show that, if just 25 percent of cars on the road are self-driving, the article says, there will be a lot more delays at intersections.
It’s not surprising that the transit crowd would want to try to discredit the idea of self-driving cars, but this is a particularly pathetic attempt. The CityLab article is based on a study that assumed that, for the sake of passenger comfort, self-driving cars would be programmed to accelerate and decelerate no faster than a light-rail or intercity train. Such slow acceleration, the study found, would increase the time it would take cars to get through stop lights.
The study was seemingly done by people who haven’t ever seen a self-driving car in real life, or maybe any car. There’s an obvious difference between cars and trains: people stand up and walk around in trains, so acceleration and deceleration has to be slow. So far, no one has designed a self-driving tall enough to stand in, so there’s no need to cripple the cars that way.
Although self-driving cars are still rare, tens if not hundreds of thousands of cars on the road have adaptive cruise control, which controls the rate of acceleration and deceleration in traffic. These cars will accelerate just as fast, and probably decelerate faster, when the speed is controlled by the computer as when controlled by a human. It sounds to me like the people who did this study tried to make up an unrealistic condition just to be able to throw dirt on the concept of self-driving cars.
Making things up seems to be common among transit advocates. A group called the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy has decided that it controls the term “bus rapid transit” and should be allowed to “certify” that a project truly is or isn’t bus rapid transit. The group’s criteria is that the buses have to have their own dedicated lanes. For some reason, the Denver Post decided this was news-worthy enough to put in a story about the group asking Denver’s Regional Transit District not to use the term bus rapid transit with reference to the agency’s planned Boulder-Denver service.
And with the growth in the medicine field, such medicines sildenafil uk are typically followed by one or more of the treatments including, vacuum devices, surgically implanted devices or major penile injections. The active ingredient of “Generic” medication (for example, of “generic phentermine”, which is adipex) is chemically identical to the active ingredient of the medicine is Sildenafil citrate and the company has made the Kamagra with using Sildenafil citrate that is exactly the same ingredient of new.castillodeprincesas.com viagra no prescription. Moreover, it provides the foundation for a buy cheap sildenafil healthy sexual life. The purpose behind having cheap order viagra is that impotence should be treated? Trick to ED treatment is not usually used for children.
The problem with that definition of BRT is that there is almost no place in the United States outside of, perhaps, the Lincoln Tunnel where bus traffic is dense enough that the buses can fully utilize their own lane. Dedicating an entire lane or pair of lanes to buses means that most of that lane capacity will be wasted. The dedicated lanes of the Los Angeles Orange Line, for example, are empty 99.8 percent of the time.
That’s why many transit experts distinguish between two types of bus rapid transit: type 1, in which the buses share lanes with other traffic; and type 2, in which the buses have their own lanes. Since we know that variable toll systems can be crafted to guarantee that the lanes will never be congested, it makes a lot more sense, both for earning revenue and for reducing congestion, to open up the lanes to toll-paying cars as Colorado is doing. The problem is that transit is highly politicized and transit advocates think the only way they can have what they want is to take it from someone else.
Speaking of politicized, it is likely that politics were behind the decision to shut down the New York subway system in the face of a snowstorm prediction that turned out to be wrong. Apparently, two trains got stuck in the snow during a storm four years ago, so rather than take the heat if another train or two got stuck, Governor Cuomo decided to strand everyone by shutting down the entire system Monday at 11 pm.
“The trains need to move as part of keeping the tracks clear and will be running all night anyway,” reported one transit expert, so closing them to the public did nothing but reduce revenue. This is the first time since the subway system opened 110 years ago that it was shut down for snow, which seems especially absurd for those parts of the system that are underground.
Of course, the nice thing about automobiles is everyone can make their own decisions about whether the weather is suitable for travel. While they may not always make the right decisions, at least one wrong decision doesn’t shut down transportation for the nation’s largest city as it does for mass transit.
Drivers can make there own decision AP? Then why was there a vehicular travel ban in NYC and elsewhere in the region?
@ Antiplanner:
The CityLab study dealt with the proposed scenario where people in a self-driving car end up on a pair of sofas, instead of in a traditional (and more likely) situation with seat belts. To stop people being chucked off these sofas, the acceleration is much lower, and so…
Bus lanes are provided to enable the buses to bypass the queues, working on the basis that the capacity of roads for cars is determined by the area close to the junction. I’m a bit surprised that you didn’t mention Liverpool, UK, which tried closing their bus lanes, with interesting (and mixed) results.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/four-liverpool-bus-lanes-come-8161608
HOT lanes work really well on expressways, where some of the lanes are converted by repositioning the Jersey barriers, possibly with additional widening. Does it work so well on narrower urban roads, where bus lanes are currently being used, and where further widening is impractical?
If you start with four lanes, two in each direction plus a median, then take away two lanes as HOT lanes, with Jersey barriers, then –
>> What happens if the single lanes that are left have a breakdown and the lanes are blocked? Nobody can overtake the broken down vehicle.
>> Do you have enough police offices to govern the HOT system?
I’m not saying that it is impossible, just that you haven’t convinced me yet.
“While they may not always make the right decisions, at least one wrong decision doesn’t shut down transportation for the nation’s largest city as it does for mass transit.”
On the 280, one wrong decision (inattention or drunkenness) on the part of one driver can shut down all 4 lanes for hours. That’s why it’s so important that we widen it – in some places, it’s only 4 lanes per direction. 8 lanes per direction would allow multiple wrecks at once and at least one or two lanes might be passable.
“The CityLab study dealt with the proposed scenario where people in a self-driving car end up on a pair of sofas, instead of in a traditional (and more likely) situation with seat belts. To stop people being chucked off these sofas, the acceleration is much lower, and so…
” ~FrancisKIng
I agree, the study is just looking at some possible scenarios. I wouldn’t’ get too worked up over that part of it. The question is, what is the significance of these scenarios?
I don’t see why the sofa scenario matters. Most people where seat belts. In the scenario of the driverless car being the minority on the roads, risks would still be high for accidents from human drivers. I don’t see it as being likely many people would forgo those seat belts in city driving.
Maybe I’m just being a bit more of a jerk than normal but I find it silly that Mr. Jaffe insists on comparing it to being as comfortable as riding as a train and insists that such a thing matters. Drivers have long been conditioned to having the privacy – a big comfort in it’s own right – and fast acceleration in their human driven cars. I don’t find it likely that those first buying driverless cars will all be having it programmed to drive in little old grandma mode.
WHich reminds me of the whole idea of riding the train being comfortable. From my experience the seats are just wide enough to SQUEEZE 2 adults side by side. There isn’t sufficient width to them to be comfortable. The same with them facing each other. You can’t stretch your legs out as you’re busy avoiding knocking knees with the person you’re facing.
You can see the difference in the 2 pictures. It shouldn’t be surprising that the car is far more spacious. They’re fitting 2 seats across with the vehicle in a lane. The train is fitting 4 across in what is roughly the same space. The space between the rows is even more pronounced.
I think Mr. Jaffe has it wrong. The driverless car is far more comfortable than the train.
“Drivers have long been conditioned to having the privacy – a big comfort in it’s own right”
I totally disagree. Riding the train is so comfortable. I’m reminded of a time in Portland on the MAX in 2002 when a couple were sitting right in front of me. The young woman began lovingly squeezing and picking the young man’s pimples. Such an intimate moment that was so comfortable to watch. The most priceless part of this memory is the reaction another passenger, who expressed his disgust quite audibly, but it had no effect on the publicly preening pair.
Trains are comfortable to ride unless, well, you actually want to comfortably sprawl out.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mta-addresses-manspreading-on-public-transportation/