XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: bap@shrdlu.com   
      
   On 14/01/14 13:45, J. Clarke wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
      
   Sorry, I wasn't clear. By reducing the size of cities I mean abandoning   
   the suburbs and moving all of the population into the centre. Reducing   
   the physical size of the city but leaving the population.   
   >   
   >> 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.   
      
   No, that's not necessarily so. The car's utilisation would increase   
   because it wouldn't be spending as much time idle. It's total mileage   
   would also be much lower because it only needs to transfer passengers to   
   a hub where they can switch to and from more efficient transport modes.   
   If my pod suggestion was used they wouldn't even need to get out of the   
   pod as it switched from road to rail.   
      
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Bernard Peek   
   bap@shrdlu.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)