Front Range / High Speed Rail (electric, rated, business)

[livecontent]

Originally Posted by Rangerdude_Charlie

It shocks to me see how high the sticker price for this proposed service. Plus would it even be profitable or would it operate at a loss on the taxpayers? Just too much IMHO. I don't consider myself an extremist but I just personally can't justify paying for this type of operation. I would love for a private corporation to come in and make this profitable without the use of a single tax dollar. I guess I'm just too nutty for this board.

No one has said that a driverless car system will be tax supported. In all the transit forums and discussions that I have been involved where this futuristic system has been discussed, it is assumed that it will be run by private investment and the profit will come from a fee based service.

Livecontent

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by livecontent

It does not matter if you drive the car or snooze in the car when it is being driven. You still are using space on a road or highway. Then, it does not at all change any of the dynamics of a regular driven car. It is not some magic device if this is the future use as it then will require more and more building of lanes and roads and still add to congestion on the highway. It is will not change anything if you buy it to replace your old car as it will still consume resources of place and time as before. Having the same individual private ownership will still consume and waste all the land we use for parking.

It only changes situations where there are less cars serving more people and that is the concept of a driverless car in the future. The scenario that is anticipated will be they will be a service that you will purchase and not own your own vehicle.

I was only pointing out an issue of return trips that would be empty seeking other passengers which causes a double use on the road space. However, A vehicles of conveyances that are for hire with a driver, still makes it a driverless car. Again a robot or a human makes no difference. These services are best meet economically when they are able to pick up and return passengers on a scheduled route with less empty time. So, I would expect the driverless car systems that you would pay as a fee based service would try to operate efficiently with pickups and drop offs.

Livecontent

How the driverless car will work exactly is impossible to predict. My best guess is you will have some people who will rent a car like you suggest and some people who prefer to own their own car. My best guess is I will be one of the ones who prefers to own his own car but I could be wrong. Either way I think it will hurt mass transit ridership right here in Colorado simply because it will be more of a viable option. Now if this was 1964 and it was more then 50 years away i would say let the next generation worry about it but its 2014 and less then 10 years away so this is not the next generation but us who will see the transformation.

[jazzlover]

A driverless car won't overcome physics. What makes automobiles and trucks structurally fuel-inefficient is the friction and rolling resistance of rubber-compound tires on asphalt and/or concrete roads. Not to mention that fact that asphalt has a very limited physical life and is made from oil (and, to a large extent, so are the tires). Steel wheels running on steel rail are three times as energy-efficient per ton-mile, even when powered by diesel locomotives, and the track structure is much longer lived--typically 30-40 years for a wood railroad tie, more than that for concrete ties, and about a century for rail. Plus, rail infrastructure costs a fraction as much to build for the amount of traffic and tonnage that it can handle compared to highways.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

A driverless car won't overcome physics. What makes automobiles and trucks structurally fuel-inefficient is the friction and rolling resistance of rubber-compound tires on asphalt and/or concrete roads. Not to mention that fact that asphalt has a very limited physical life and is made from oil (and, to a large extent, so are the tires). Steel wheels running on steel rail are three times as energy-efficient per ton-mile, even when powered by diesel locomotives, and the track structure is much longer lived--typically 30-40 years for a wood railroad tie, more than that for concrete ties, and about a century for rail. Plus, rail infrastructure costs a fraction as much to build for the amount of traffic and tonnage that it can handle compared to highways.

That might be true but we won't have gas powered cars much longer and once we have driverless cars I would much rather take that to Denver over mass transit.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

That might be true but we won't have gas powered cars much longer and once we have driverless cars I would much rather take that to Denver over mass transit.

It still takes more energy--whether it's electricity, CNG, or some other source. Here's a basic truth you just can't seem to get: energy costs money, and the more you use, the more it costs. And ALL sources of energy, no matter what the type, are going to cost more in real terms over time because the resources, labor, and/or technology inputs to produce them are going to cost more. There is no free lunch, much as you think (or wish) there is.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

It still takes more energy--whether it's electricity, CNG, or some other source. Here's a basic truth you just can't seem to get: energy costs money, and the more you use, the more it costs. And ALL sources of energy, no matter what the type, are going to cost more in real terms over time because the resources, labor, and/or technology inputs to produce them are going to cost more. There is no free lunch, much as you think (or wish) there is.

Actually energy prices will drop significantly in the next few decades as solar continues to advance expontinially. Plus batteries are imptoving so the ablity to store the energy will imptove as the cost goes down. So I am not worried about the cost to power my driverless car in the future.

[CosmicWizard]

@Joss.....I think it's a good thing that you are not wasting your energy worrying about the cost of power, because worrying wouldn't change anything anyway. BUT assuming that that cost of batteries will go down, seems rather naieve and optimistic. You could be right though, but I doubt it. We'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by CosmicWizard

@Joss.....I think it's a good thing that you are not wasting your energy worrying about the cost of power, because worrying wouldn't change anything anyway. BUT assuming that that cost of batteries will go down, seems rather naieve and optimistic. You could be right though, but I doubt it. We'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out.

I know it seems optimistic and I thought the same thing when I first heard about this 5 years ago. Unlike weather that can not be predicted with 100% accuracy information technology can be predicted with 100% accuracy. There is over 100 years of data that proves that. Its a simple reason you take today's technology and build tomorrows twice as better. Then when tomorrow comes you use the current generation of computers to build the next again twice as fast. Then as time goes on it takes less time to build the next generation so not only is the curve exponential but it goes up. That is why when it comes to the cost of the energy needed to power the cars, SUV's and tucks it will go down not up. That is, also, why we are seeing driverless cars enter the market in the next decade and not the next century.

Now that I have shown why I believe what I do getting back on topic this is why while I think having a HSR hub in Pueblo would be fun and good for my ego might not be used all that much. I know some people would use it but I think the vast majority would be like me and just tell their car where to go and sit back and enjoy the ride.

[jazzlover]

It's obvious that Josseppie flunked basic science. He also must have flunked basic economics, too. I'm sure glad that he is not in any position of power managing taxpayer money or anything that the rest of us might have to pay for.

He sure as hell knows nothing about transportation or energy, which are disciplines that I've been involved in, directly and indirectly, for my whole adult life. I could have told the people paying for the study of HSR that is wasn't going to be feasible in Colorado--in about three days and for about 1% of what it cost for that study. A now deceased friend of mine who spent his whole career doing engineering for railroad construction tried to tell the CDOT people just that several years ago. They didn't listen, spent several more years and millions of taxpayer dollars studying it, and came up with the same conclusion that he had already told them. Now, conventional passenger rail, that's another matter--it could work.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

It's obvious that Josseppie flunked basic science. He also must have flunked basic economics, too. I'm sure glad that he is not in any position of power managing taxpayer money or anything that the rest of us might have to pay for.

He sure as hell knows nothing about transportation or energy, which are disciplines that I've been involved in, directly and indirectly, for my whole adult life.

You understand energy? Look at this about how solar energy has been advancing exponentially since the 1970's. Then you combine it with advances with batteries, I posted a article on that a few posts back, and there will be plenty of cheap energy for cars, trucks, and SUV's. Why I am not worried and why I think most people will choose to take driverless cars over mass-transit.


If the trend continues for another 8-10 years, which seems increasingly likely, solar will be as cheap as coal with the added benefit of zero carbon emissions. If the cost continues to fall over the next 20 years, solar costs will be half that of coal. These predictions may in fact be too conservative given that First Solar have reported internal production costs of 75 cents (46 pence) per watt with an expectation of 50 cents (31 pence) per watt by 2016.

When applied to electricity prices this predicts that solar generated electricity in the US will descend to a level of 12 cents (7 pence) per kilowatt hour by 2020, possibly even 2015 for the sunniest parts of America.

The link: When Solar Becomes Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels | azizonomics