XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science
From: jclarkeusenet@cox.net
In article , bap@shrdlu.com says...
>
> On 14/01/14 03:21, Robert Bannister wrote:
> >> I know train fans love trains, but the fact is that the circumstances
> >> under which they make economic sense are limited.
> >>
> >
> > That's what the conservatives said about rail in my city. Now the
> > no-longer-quite-new trains are packed and are much faster than you could
> > possibly drive and cheaper than using a car. It's the parking at the
> > train station that is the problem.
>
> It's certainly true that trains are more easily justifiable when
> population densities are high. But foreseeable changes might alter
> population-density in the US. If the cost of energy continues to rise it
> will tend to encourage energy-efficient use of land. That could involve
> reducing the size of cities so that the majority of the population can
> use trains.
??? The places in the US where trains work are New York, Chicago, and
DC, all of which have very high population densities. Lower population
density means that trains don't work because you don't get enough
ridership to support the cost.
> Self-driving cars could be a part of a larger integrated
> transport system. Less energy-efficient than having to walk to a bus
> stop but more efficient than using individually owned cars.
The efficiency increase of a self-driving car would be minimal--the
difference between cruise control and no cruise control. All the
schemes I'm seeing touted on this thread to use them like taxicabs with
one car serving multiple people would not increase efficiency, it would
decrease it because the car is running around all over the place
repositioning itself.
> Of course there is also the safety issue. If we continue to be more
> risk-averse then manually driven cars might be banned or more likely
> discouraged by higher insurance costs.
This is concievable.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
