Re:How driverless cars will affect our cities
by rayiner on Friday March 29, 2013 @10:00AM
(#5460736)
I think a lot of these things also aren't thought through:
1) Driverless cars might possibly allow higher capacity/speeds on major highway thoroughfares, causing cities to expand. Or, they might totally solve the "last mile" problem of commuter rail. High-speed car travel dramatically increases wear and tear on roads, and building more highly-worn roads further out might not make as much sense as building out rail.[1]
2) Driverless cars may case semi-urban areas (like Palo Alto or Tyson's Corner in Virginia) to contract, because of the dramatic reduction in parking requirements.
It's not clear that the prevailing trends are towards bigger, sprawlier houses. Indeed, at least on the east coast, the development seems to be on moderate-density mixed commercial/residential in places like Northern Virginia. In the Chicago area (not east coast, I know), satellite cities like Aurora have been growing at 20-40% the last few decades. In the D.C. area, Arlington has been growing at double-digit rates over that period, and Alexandria has averaged about double digits. I can easily imagine driverless cars moving this trend along, replacing core cities with sprawling suburbs with core cities surrounded by dense satellite towns, connected by rail.
[1] One of the interesting things about say the Metro North railroad I take to work is how relatively undisruptive it is to the surrounding area. There are nice houses a stones-throw away from the rail line, while there would never be such houses that close to a highway. And even the 2x2 express arrangement fits the capacity of a major highway into the space of a very modest suburban road. The whole Metro North system moves 300,000 people into Manhattan each weekday and operates on a meager budget of $200 million/year. I don't think there is any way you could maintain a comparable highway network for that price, and that's before you factor-in gas/mileage on the vehicles (which, operating at higher speed, are going to use more energy and wear out faster--it's simple physics).
EDIT: I've seen 7-15 cents per vehicle mile quoted for maintenance and traffic services. Metro North probably represents a few billion vehicle miles equivalent.
1) Driverless cars might possibly allow higher capacity/speeds on major highway thoroughfares, causing cities to expand. Or, they might totally solve the "last mile" problem of commuter rail. High-speed car travel dramatically increases wear and tear on roads, and building more highly-worn roads further out might not make as much sense as building out rail.[1]
2) Driverless cars may case semi-urban areas (like Palo Alto or Tyson's Corner in Virginia) to contract, because of the dramatic reduction in parking requirements.
It's not clear that the prevailing trends are towards bigger, sprawlier houses. Indeed, at least on the east coast, the development seems to be on moderate-density mixed commercial/residential in places like Northern Virginia. In the Chicago area (not east coast, I know), satellite cities like Aurora have been growing at 20-40% the last few decades. In the D.C. area, Arlington has been growing at double-digit rates over that period, and Alexandria has averaged about double digits. I can easily imagine driverless cars moving this trend along, replacing core cities with sprawling suburbs with core cities surrounded by dense satellite towns, connected by rail.
[1] One of the interesting things about say the Metro North railroad I take to work is how relatively undisruptive it is to the surrounding area. There are nice houses a stones-throw away from the rail line, while there would never be such houses that close to a highway. And even the 2x2 express arrangement fits the capacity of a major highway into the space of a very modest suburban road. The whole Metro North system moves 300,000 people into Manhattan each weekday and operates on a meager budget of $200 million/year. I don't think there is any way you could maintain a comparable highway network for that price, and that's before you factor-in gas/mileage on the vehicles (which, operating at higher speed, are going to use more energy and wear out faster--it's simple physics).
EDIT: I've seen 7-15 cents per vehicle mile quoted for maintenance and traffic services. Metro North probably represents a few billion vehicle miles equivalent.