Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hacking critical infrastrucuture is way more destructive than hacking cars. Right now, a significant portion of red lights are networked and could be hacked. Are you scared that someone is going to hack them and turn them all green a la Die Hard 4? Not to mention the wanton devastation of everyone's lives if the power grid is taken down.
No because it isn't as simple as "SET LIGHT 1: GREEN; SET LIGHT 2: GREEN" the electronic circuitry should prevent that unless it's really badly built. There should be no electrical way to set two conflicting routes to green, even so, that's a far cry from telling a vehicle to go 90mph and lock the steering! People don't crash all the time at 2-way or 4-way stops do they? There may be a few accidents at the onset of such a scenario, but that'd be it.
Quote:
Computers in cars is one of the biggest reasons for the reduction of fatalities on the roads. Thanks to things like ABS, air bags, adaptive cruise control, and traction control, inept human drivers are saved from their own and other's mistakes.
I'm not talking about small, dedicated processors designed to do one thing and do it well, that aren't networked into a communications system, I'm talking about interfacing those into something like OnStar or providing remote monitoring, diagnostic and service that already opens up the vehicle to external modification. Or something that can take substantive control over a vehicle such as "adaptive cruise control" that will "maintain spacing" or something that controls the steering.
I mean for goodness sake, aircraft have had "autoland" for years now, but even in the highly controlled environment of an airport where all traffic is monitored, the "roads" are very carefully maintained, and the speeds are very low (less than 15mph) once on the ground, it STILL isn't used! Get back to me when aircraft can taxi themselves at least off the runway.
Quote:
People apparently have no idea how profound the safety implications are for automated cars. Version 1.0 will likely see a 90% drop in fatalities. Over time, it will drop even further. Computers pay 100% attention 100% of the time. Most people I see driving have their head down looking at a screen. Even if there is some hacking, it will be safer than humans behind the wheel.
All this, on top of the huge implications to traffic and congestion, reduction of cars owned, etc. Its a total game changer and it should be considered to a degree in planning.
Regardless of the supposed possibilities of these driverless cars, they aren't even on the horizon, and when they are, we don't know what kind of infrastructure changes they will even requires so how exactly do we "plan" for them? Aren't you one of the ones saying they won't need anything special anyways (yea right) so how do you "plan" for driverless cars if they aren't going to require any planning beyond what we already do?
Originally Posted by architect77 The cheapest solution would be to build an I-75 bypass west of I-285 to get Florida-bound traffic separated from local Atlanta traffic.
New interstates can be built through undeveloped countryside for very little money. Look at NC, which has constructed probably 1,000 miles of new divided highways over the past 30 years.
An I-75 bypass would take 40,000 vehicles off the downtown connector.
Problem solved for about $2 billion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt
What kind of commuter rail system could we implement on upgraded, existing rail corridors if simple stations are built and we use refurbished railcars?
cq makes a great point that a great deal of regional commuter rail service could be implemented for the $2 billion figure that architect77 cited in being the cost to build a 2nd Western Bypass around Atlanta.
Ideally, we could use (and should build) both a comprehensive regional high-capacity multimodal transit network (regional commuter rail, regional heavy rail, light rail and bus) AND an Outer Perimeter/Outer Bypass and we should be willing to come up with the revenue streams that would be needed to do so using real estate profit/fee-funded large-scale P3's (Public-Private Partnerships) that would enable such projects to be funded without using inadequate existing transportation funds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt
Building an outer loop would just create more sprawl.
You make a great point that a new Outer Perimeter would create more sprawling development.
But not all sprawling development is bad.
Some sprawling development, like large-scale commercial and industrial development (like laboratories, factories, warehouses, storage, distribution and logistical facilities) are very important and highly beneficial to the job market and economy of a very large and highly-populated metropolitan region like Atlanta.
The aforementioned large-scale commercial and industrial development needs to be located near limited and controlled-access highways to get equipment and goods in and out as easily as is possible. The aforementioned large-scale commercial and industrial development also needs increased amounts of land upon which to build, grow and expand large industrial facilities....Increased amounts of land that can be found much more easily on the outskirts of a large major metro region than it can in and near the already-developed core of a large major metro region.
I think its also important for suburb to suburb commuting. If you don't build it too far out, you won't just keep through traffic out of Atlanta, you will keep some OTP commuters.
You are correct that the T-SPLOST did not have any Outer Perimeter work on list of projects to be funded.
...But the T-SPLOST did have a road construction project in it proposed to be built in the abandoned right-of-way of the Northern Arc/Outer Perimeter that drew much ire from environmental groups (led by the surprisingly-powerful Sierra Club), Intown transit-advocacy groups and outer-suburban private landowners.
The project that was proposed to be funded by the 2012 T-SPLOST that drew so much objection and protest from these groups was the proposed final two phases of the Sugarloaf Parkway Extension in the right-of-way of the abandoned Northern Arc/Outer Perimeter....Which Gwinnett County had intentionally kept free of development for the express purpose of extending the Sugarloaf Parkway Extension from GA 20 to Peachtree Industrial Boulevard.
The Sugarloaf Parkway Extension obviously was not a resurrection of the Northern Arc/Outer Perimeter. But just the inclusion of this project in such a politically-sensitive right-of-way was enough to make many road construction-averse groups think the project actually was a resurrection of the Northern Arc/Outer Perimeter which was extremely unpopular during the time that the state was pursuing it back in the late 1990's and early 2000's.
It was the growing widespread paranoia about the Sugarloaf Parkway Extension being a resurrection of the unpopular Northern Arc that (along with a myriad of other major issues) played a major role in helping to sink the T-SPLOST.
It was no surprise to see the T-SPLOST be sunk in large part by growing fears that it was being used to fund a resurrection of the Northern Arc seeing as though the Northern Arc was such an unpopular project whose overwhelming opposition helped to decide the outcome of the 2002 Gubernatorial race which sparked the realignment of Georgia's entire political structure from predominantly-Democrat to predominantly Republican.
Here are some links that show the Sierra Club being opposed to the inclusion of the Sugarloaf Parkway Extension on the list of projects proposed to be funded by the T-SPLOST because of their fear that the project was a resurrection of the controversial Northern Arc: T-SPLOST Project List: Lowlights | News Feature | Creative Loafing Atlanta
From the above link:
Quote:
The return of the Northern Arc? http://documents.atlantaregional.com...TIA-GW-060.pdf
Nearly $300 million of tax revenues would pay for this extension of Sugarloaf Parkway from State Route 316 to State Route 20 in Gwinnett County. The Sierra Club of Georgia considers the four-lane asphalt atrocity a return of the so-called "Northern Arc," a controversial outer perimeter road that was shot down during former Gov. Roy Barnes' term — and which the eco-advocacy group helped kill.
It is critical that transit supporters speak out for more T-SPLOST funds for MARTA, the BeltLine and adding the Atlanta-Griffin rail line to the project list. Moving $300 million away from the resuscitated Northern Arc “Sugarloaf Parkway Extension” to transit projects is also a priority.
But the most troubling element of the TIA draft list is that a segment of the Northern Arc expressway, an intensely controversial road that was repeatedly contested finally defeated by a diverse coalition of organizations (including Sierra Club) nearly a decade ago, was quietly slipped onto the list as project TIA-GW-060 with little public discussion regarding the true impact and ramifications of this decision.
The connection between TIA-GW-060 and the historical Outer Perimeter / Northern Arc concept is undeniable when properly articulated (click here for a visual explanation), and we are concerned that once voters fully appreciate the magnitude of the decision to resurrect a divisive proposal that was resoundingly rejected by the public years ago, this project will become a poison pill that could endanger passage of the tax next year.
Your ill-informed opinions about internet legislation have little to nothing to do with the downtown connector, the topic of discussion.
Apparently you don't know how an "analogy" works....
Quote:
Creating a so-called "fast lane" allows broadband providers to charge companies more money to send their delay-sensitive traffic first. In other words, if Netflix paid Verizon for a priority service, the Netflix traffic would get to ride in the HOV fast lane. Other web traffic that doesn't pay a priority won't get access to this fast lane. Source
Quote:
5.“Net neutrality does not eliminate the Fast Lane. Lack of competition among the ISPs is the real problem.” Talking point. Although this statement has been made to criticize the recent FCC rulings, it is actually true.
Fast Lanes currently exist. High end content and hosting providers add “nodes” to the “Backbone” of the Internet, i.e. they build hardware solutions to deliver their large volume of content. These types of Fast Lanes benefit everybody, because they increase the overall carrying capacity of the Internet. Net Neutrality bans the type of Fast Lane solutions in which the flow of content is artificially restricted.
Lack of competitions among ISPs is a real problem. Source
Thank God GDOT isn't proposing "Highway Neutrality", banning HOV/HOT Lanes, or MARTA introducing "Transportation Neutrality" banning Express Routes. (some people's heads on this forum would explode)
Apparently you don't know how an "analogy" works....
Thank God GDOT isn't proposing "Highway Neutrality", banning HOV/HOT Lanes, or MARTA introducing "Transportation Neutrality" banning Express Routes. (some people's heads on this forum would explode)
Becuase we already have "highway neutrality." It doesn't matter whether a vehicle comes from Decatur, GA or Decatur, AL, it's treated the same on the roads, or it doesn't matter if a MARTA train is coming from Inman Park or Indian Creek, it's treated the same on the rails just like the net neutrality rules enforce treating packets the same regardless of source. You and that article's analogy of non-net-neutrality creating an "HOV Lane for the internet" is wrong since the discrimination on the internet would be based on source of traffic, not on type of traffic as real HOV lanes are.
Actually knowing how an analogy works and thinking you're wrong aren't mutually exclusive. I can't believe I have to say this, but freeways and the internet don't work the same way, the same laws of physics do not apply to both, and your point is still completely ill-informed.
Clearly, there is a traffic problem that needs to be resolved. It's complicated enough driving around there and this sounds like even more confusion to the uninitiated. My question is this: are there other options for alleviating the problem? Maybe I'll think all of the ideas are bad, but that's when you just have to go with the best of the bad options. I don't work for the GDOT as I'm sure youi can tell, but I do no think it's asking too much to have two or three options from which to choose.
cq makes a great point that a great deal of regional commuter rail service could be implemented for the $2 billion figure that architect77 cited in being the cost to build a 2nd Western Bypass around Atlanta.
Ideally, we could use (and should build) both a comprehensive regional high-capacity multimodal transit network (regional commuter rail, regional heavy rail, light rail and bus) AND an Outer Perimeter/Outer Bypass and we should be willing to come up with the revenue streams that would be needed to do so using real estate profit/fee-funded large-scale P3's (Public-Private Partnerships) that would enable such projects to be funded without using inadequate existing transportation funds.
You make a great point that a new Outer Perimeter would create more sprawling development.
But not all sprawling development is bad.
Some sprawling development, like large-scale commercial and industrial development (like laboratories, factories, warehouses, storage, distribution and logistical facilities) are very important and highly beneficial to the job market and economy of a very large and highly-populated metropolitan region like Atlanta.
The aforementioned large-scale commercial and industrial development needs to be located near limited and controlled-access highways to get equipment and goods in and out as easily as is possible. The aforementioned large-scale commercial and industrial development also needs increased amounts of land upon which to build, grow and expand large industrial facilities....Increased amounts of land that can be found much more easily on the outskirts of a large major metro region than it can in and near the already-developed core of a large major metro region.
There is plenty of underutilized land in older industrial areas of Atlanta that are ripe for redevelopment. FIB, Fort McPherson, and Southside Industrial Park offer land that's already has infrastructure and freeway access.
I'm not going to get into the point by point arguments that kill threads but...
I guarantee you the new lights are running little computers inside those steel boxes on the side of the road. Little computers that technically can be hacked, just like a car. I'm sure they are not just simple electronic circuits, that would be too expensive when a computer can handle it. The automated car concept will likely be more like a cruise control feature for the longest time. As I have already said about 30 times in this thread, it is easy to do on a limited access highway, hard to do on surface streets. The planning implications here relate to intra-city rail. Interstates is where this tech will debut and be quite popular. It also leads to allowing people to live even farther out, so the implications of further sprawl should be considered as well.
But yeah, it's not really coming anytime soon...
Quote:
The car equipped by Delphi, an automotive technology company headquartered in England, completed a 9-day trip from San Francisco to New York City, logging nearly 3,400 miles and operating under full automation through 99 percent of the trip.
and this
Quote:
Although Google gets a lot of headlines for its driverless vehicle concepts, there are a lot of players entering the game. Honda announced it would begin testing its self-driving prototypes at a former U.S. Naval base, Nissan is pledging to have autonomous vehicles in Japan by 2016 and Apple reportedly wants to get into the vehicle business.
When technology progresses, it does so exponentially. 10-15 years, and I'm being conservative.
Last edited by tikigod311; 04-11-2015 at 07:28 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No because it isn't as simple as "SET LIGHT 1: GREEN; SET LIGHT 2: GREEN" the electronic circuitry should prevent that unless it's really badly built. There should be no electrical way to set two conflicting routes to green, even so, that's a far cry from telling a vehicle to go 90mph and lock the steering! People don't crash all the time at 2-way or 4-way stops do they? There may be a few accidents at the onset of such a scenario, but that'd be it.
Apparently you don't know how an "analogy" works....
