The Detroit metro area population is 3.5 million.
All those parking lots at all those destinations for all those individually owned personal self-driving cars (which presumably are just sitting there waiting for their owners all day, even less efficient than the rent-a-car versions that will go fetch other passengers for other trips after they drop you off) also have to be built and maintained. And either they have to be put right in the destination city where they take up space that could be used by other infrastructure, or they have to be located in more remote areas with sufficient traffic accommodations to handle all those personal cars trundling back and forth to pick up or wait for their owners.
Two multi-hour legs of a two-way trip, along with the car having to come fetch you and put itself away after dropping you off each time, basically is a full day of car use.
And comparing car rental costs today with the hypothesized future costs of renting a hypothesized self-driving car is ducking the real question, which is: How does the cost of this individual car rental for a multi-hour trip compare to the ticket cost of an individual trip over the same distance in a multi-passenger mass transit vehicle?
That’s easily answered: Renting an individual vehicle is always going to be far more expensive than renting a seat on a multi-passenger mass transit vehicle for the same trip distance.
Okay, but the Keystone XL Pipeline has been one of the massive infrastructure projects that failed like the ones he gleefully listed above. What’s his reasoning and conclusion there? That no successful infrastructure project is ever worth pursuing?
Which would be doable in a car in six hours (as in Sam’s hypothetical), if that car did 150 mph. We know how to make cars that can drive 150mph (or more) for extended periods of time, though they are essentially race cars right now.
Maybe, if everyone is in autonomous cars that are built to operate reliably at those speeds, and on roadways built for those speeds, it’d be safe to have everyone in cars that are regularly going 150-200mph. OTOH, upgrading the highway system to handle those speeds would be tremendously costly, and at that point, one wonders if the cost of HSR infrastructure would be cheaper.
I strongly disagree with this; I believe it’s the opposite. There are a lot of trends that favor denser living, not just environmental. There is a growing belief that low-density suburbs are a drain on governments. This is perhaps a better discussion for another thread.
The only reason I would support building rail infrastructure now it to stay ahead of population growth and NIBYism. For example, if California had built a rail system between SF and SD 50 years ago they’d probably have a viable, efficient (in relative terms) rail corridor.
No, I’m afraid you haven’t thought this through (or sized Tesla seats versus what you can get even in coach class on Amtrak). The rear seats in a Tesla Model 3, e.g., are notorious for being too cramped for taller passengers and they lack the reclining capabilities or footrests standard on Amtrak (let’s not even get into Business Class or First Class seats on the train). Moreover, much of the footspace for the front-seat passengers is under the dash, so is not available if the front seats are merely rotated. You’re going to need to elongate the cabin, which will push up the weight and hence energy consumption. (That mini-fridge takes both space and energy as well. Is it replacing one of the rear seats?)
One cite I’ve seen is that turning on the climate control in a Model 3 increases energy consumption by 17%. Which table in the Transportation Energy Data Book are you using to come up with 823 BTU/mile?
I’m going to guess that some think that keystone only failed because of the Greenie Bastards Who Want to Destroy Our Economy. And Trudeau. He’s apparently to blame for most things.
The Tesla of The Future!
Trudeau broke my toaster!
That’s awesome! Take my money!
Unfortunately these threads are too long and move too fast for one to jump in…so this point might be wholly redundant. Fair warning.
Does it actually make any sense at all to hinge this debate on BTUs per passenger mile? Sure, in raw terms that’s a measure of efficiency, but that’s not the metric that people are most concerned with.
We’re worried about carbon being added to the atmosphere. And while I’m open to the idea that the cost of building the new rail infrastructure might be a poor long term investment both financially and in carbon emission reduction, we should focus the debate on carbon.
If you live in a city served entirely by nuclear or renewable electricity, then it doesn’t matter one bit how many BTUs your Tesla uses. From a carbon standpoint those passenger miles are effectively cost free no matter the BTUs used. If the high speed rail is powered by electricity, and I’d be somewhat surprised it they weren’t, again the BTUs per passenger mile are a meaningless stat.
In a carbon neutral future we MUST urbanize further. Population density needs to go up. Living 50+ miles outside a city and commuting by car will need to become a luxury most can’t afford. The current population densities in these areas shouldn’t be the metric we use to project the usage rates for HSR. That said, I acknowledge that substantial changes to housing, zoning, employment and social services need to be made to support and drive this further urbanization.
I suspect that before we actually are able to follow through on HSR deployment, Tesla and other’s autonomous full self driving features will be mature enough that we’ll be able to essentially create ad hoc trains of cars that drive themselves from point to point. These may even be able to travel at upwards of 125 mph safely with zero driver engagement. This could be preferable to HSR in 80% of locations.
Will we still need to commute?
One long-term aspect of this pandemic may be the realization that no, a lot of jobs that used to be done by a whole bunch of people gathered together in one big office can be done just as efficiently by that same bunch of people working from home (and paying their own electric bills). If you don’t have a daily commute, though, that changes many (not all, but many) of the assumptions about urbanization.
I don’t think the current interstate highway road system can support those speeds. So they will need to be upgraded and the cost will be substantial. That is to say, we can’t rely on the current highway system to function as an alternative to a newly designed and built HSR system.
The only argument that makes sense to me to avoid the high cost of HSR and a complete overhaul of the interstate highway system to accommodate high speed vehicle transport (advanced self driving cars) is to reduce the need for commuting via telework and distributed office building networks.
First of all, I didn’t say anything about Keystone in this thread. Second, the fact that it has failed after billions were spent on it makes my point about regime risk. In Canada, the government bought fhe Transmountain pipeline for 4.5 billiin with apromise to finish its expansion - which is now looking pretty dead. In BC, their site C hydro project was budgeted at $10 billion but now that has been raised to 16 billion dollars and the Dam was said to be operational by 2025. It is now the most expensive dam project in Canadian history - and it is being tied up in litigation over supposed environmental concerns and native Canadian concerns.
The recent history of large industrial projects, and especially large government industrial projects, is dismal. And regime risk is high, especially in this heavily polarized era.
I hope that’s where we land, but whatever the new status quo is I don’t think it will be anything universal. There will probably be commuters in some percentage who will need to choose between living close and using mass transit versus living far out and driving. Whether it’s regional HSR, expanded urban transit or just a carbon tax that motivates people to live closer in, we’ll have to do somethin to disincentivize that lifestyle.
Can back that up? I don’t know of any reason why relatively lightweight cars on dedicated HOV-like lanes would be more taxing for the roads than heavy truck traffic.
If we need to upgrade the highway infrastructure to better accommodate these autonomous caravans that’s reasonable and probably cheaper than building new HSR tracks. And this kind of road maintenance is already a common cost, so it’s not like it’s going to require anything truly transformative. Adding a lane in congested areas is happening somewhere in every city right now already…if it’s designated for FSD EVs…awesome.
From the Wikipedia entry on Interstate Highway standards, which quotes the American Asssociation of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), which sets the standards for Interstate design:
Note that that’s minimum speed, but a road which can safely support speeds that are twice that will likely need an even smoother surface, and curves which are both more gradual and more banked, than what the current design standards support.
I didn’t say you did. I did that. I only said that it was absent from the list of many failed or over-budget infrastructure type efforts that you did happen to mention. I’ve never heard you argue against the KXLP. Perhaps you oppose that as well?
Anyway, are there national infrastructure & mass transportation projects that you do support?
Also, because HSR needs its own track, it will be a legal nightmare and we’ll see lots of eminent domain action and legal challenges.
Also, because HSR requires very long and gradual curves, flexibility for where to place track goes down, making legal and environmental challenges more difficult and potentially damaging to the plan.
And because trains don’t do hills, the amount of tunneling and earthmoving and bridge and berm building is not only much higher, but it’s extremely energy intensive work. Several decades of it, during a time when we are trying to lower CO2. That’s also true of Amtrack expansion.
I’ve got a car designed & built for the autobahn and I cannot safely drive it at those speeds on existing highways due to the fact that I would not be able to safely negotiate many of the curves built for speeds well below the 125mph you mentioned in your previous post.