We could've vastly expanded a lot of train systems with the amount of money that's been burned trying to make cars drive themselves.

Unfortunately, most new transportation methods that are not trains are just attempts to build trains, while claiming they are not trains and will cost less than trains. But inevitably end up costing as much as trains.

Trains.

Is this really true? To be able to build a track you need to have government-level authority (e.g., in GP's example, to build something on its own lane in the road, or to displace people in homes in the way of the track). However, the entities funding SDCs are private.

Having dedicated tracks solve a lot of problems for autonomous vehicles.

Governments already claim a monopoly on roads in most places. Imagine if those roads had some sort of cheap embedded track that a number of vehicles could latch onto. Then you just need some sort of computer to coordinate the vehicles using the track, and understanding where the vehicles are on the track.

This isn’t exactly stopping the Boring Company or Loop from making its promises, is it?

Perhaps my info on these are out of date. Why would you say those are successful examples?

Oh I'm not saying they're successful, but just as Tesla is on shaky ground promising full automation, the others are on shaky ground promising constrained environments where full automation would work best.

Or they are attempts to reinvent the wheel because we can't possibly use a train built elsewhere. Or they are using trains as an excuse to push money to their political friends.

> We could've vastly expanded a lot of train systems with the amount of money that's been burned trying to make cars drive themselves.

I'd like to see the numbers on that. Given the cost for the CHSR is around $100B, I don't think that statement is true. The bigger issue here is the US's inability to build fast trains, affordably, and on a reasonable timeline.

Counting only published investment in companies like Cruise, Zoox, Argo, Nuro, Aurora, etc. gives investment of around 20B . But its likely that the money invested "privately" in Tesla's AV division, Uber ATC, lyft's AV division, Waymo, and Cruise post acquisition is much higher.

I think a very conservative guess is that there's been $40B invested in this space. That would, for example, cover the south bay BART expansion 4-5 times over.

> That would, for example, cover the south bay BART expansion 4-5 times over.

I've become more cynical about CA (and the US in general) lately. By reasonable costs it would, but I think the various corruption interests would find their way to increase the price tag until it is only half done, while they enjoy their $40 billion.

I'm pretty cynical myself, but the first phase of BART extension to the south bay is already completed and has been running for nearly a year, and cost $2.9B. The second phase is a bit more difficult because it requires substantially more underground work in downtown San Jose, but $40B would be quite a bit even by CA standards.

Madrid does all underground lines lines like your phase 2 for about 1 billion. Someone needs to learn about cost control. Think of how much more they could get with Madrid prices.

Not saying that CA prices aren't inflated, but there are also geological differences that probably matter. Madrid isn't near active fault lines (not to mention generic soil differences that can matter, but IDK if they do in this case).

I don't have Japanese costs, but they are lower, and deal with worse earthquakes than CA

There is basically no good place to build high speed rail in the U.S. Cross country routes aren't remotely competitive with air travel. Regional routes only make sense on the coast where they have unfavorable terrain like mountains, and some of the most populated/valuable land in the country. HSR really starts losing in time cost to flights in the 800-1000 mile range, and needs about 200 miles to make it better than driving. That a very narrow band for the U.S.

800 miles is quite far from the coast.

Also there are considerations other than time, it's much more convenient that driving or flying. I know in USA there's last mile problem going out of railway station but that can be solved by car trains.

Even if all that were true, it still does not explain the high costs. There are countless examples in other countries proving it's possible.

Imagine the investment wasted on self-driving cars being spent to solve that problem.

Another good example of a pretty neat, autonomous personal rail transport system is in Morgantown WV: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgantown_Personal_Rapid_Tran...

A slight tangent, but the Victoria Line (London Underground system) was officially opened in 1969 to run trains automatically without the need for drivers. However, there is always a driver in the cab for emergencies etc.

On opening, the line was equipped with a fixed-block Automatic Train Operation system (ATO). The train operator closed the train doors and pressed a pair of "start" buttons and, if the way ahead was clear, the ATO drives the train at a safe speed to the next station. At any point, the driver could switch to manual control if the ATO failed.[27] The system, which operated until 2012, made the Victoria line the world's first full-scale automatic railway.

- from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_line#Service_and_roll...

The Copenhagen metro has zero drivers, and not even room for one.

https://migogkbh.dk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Metro-1200x72...

No modern metro system should have anything new with drivers, as of about 20 years ago. Now most systems were build when automation wasn't an option, and it does take years to upgrade, so I'll give them another 10 year to do all the needed upgrades to get rid of the now obsolete drivers. I'll be shocked if any make them that haven't already, but the upgrade and remodel cycle should be 30 years long for all transport systems so I have to give them those 10 years.