Your Ideal Quiet Space?

[mistermack]

Once they perfect the driverless car system, going places should be nice.
Especially in a people carrier. You won't need seat belts, because the cars won't crash.
You can just sit round a table, and have a meal and get pissed, or play cards, or natter. You won't need to navigate, or worry about distracting the driver.

Already got one. It's called "Amtrak."\

I will never, ever set foot in an automobile that does not have an operable steering wheel, accelerator pedal and brake pedal.

No problem grandad. Airliners still have all the controls. Even if the computer does most or sometimes nearly all of the work.
I'll be happy to travel without a driver, once the statistics tell me it's safer.

[Seth]

Once they perfect the driverless car system, going places should be nice.
Especially in a people carrier. You won't need seat belts, because the cars won't crash.
You can just sit round a table, and have a meal and get pissed, or play cards, or natter. You won't need to navigate, or worry about distracting the driver.

Already got one. It's called "Amtrak."\

I will never, ever set foot in an automobile that does not have an operable steering wheel, accelerator pedal and brake pedal.

No problem grandad. Airliners still have all the controls. Even if the computer does most or sometimes nearly all of the work.
I'll be happy to travel without a driver, once the statistics tell me it's safer.

We don't pay airline pilots on a per-hour basis, we effectively pay them a lump sum to be there and know what to do when shit happens, like your engines ingest a bunch of geese and flame-out, requiring you to land the aircraft on the Hudson River.

So long as I, or a trained professional, or someone I know to be competent is in the driver's seat, hands on the wheel, foot on the pedal, monitoring the actions of the system I'm okay with it. Mercedes and BMW both now have advanced systems that keep you in your lane, brake automatically based on speed and radar calculations and recognize if you're dozing off. That's what we need more of. Automated cars? Perhaps as short-range taxis traveling no more than 25 mph in dense urban areas like Manhattan (where you can rarely go 25 mph anyway) they might be acceptable, a la "Total Recall" (the original, with Arnold), but high-speed, long-distance travel? No way.

What I'd like to see is for the rail network to be expanded and modified. They are proposing high-speed rail from Cheyenne to Albequerque along the Front Range. But they envision it as passenger rail only. The problem is that if I want to go to Santa Fe from Denver, I want my car when I get there. So what they need to do is take a page from the Channel Tunnel and design the rail system so that it carries automobiles (not commercial traffic, which would use a different set of rails) so that you can drive on and then drive off at the destination without ever leaving your car. That would substantially reduce the wear and tear on the millions of miles of Interstate highways that force us to drive cross-country because we need our vehicles.

[mistermack]

No need. Driverless cars means driverless taxis. Driverless taxis means cheap taxis.
And hardly any accidents means cheap hire cars. The distinction between taxi and hire car will blur.

You just order one on your phone. It pulls up and opens the door. You put your credit card details in, and use it till you don't need it for a while. Then it drives off and picks up another punter.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

What I'd like to see is for the rail network to be expanded and modified. They are proposing high-speed rail from Cheyenne to Albequerque along the Front Range. But they envision it as passenger rail only. The problem is that if I want to go to Santa Fe from Denver, I want my car when I get there. So what they need to do is take a page from the Channel Tunnel and design the rail system so that it carries automobiles (not commercial traffic, which would use a different set of rails) so that you can drive on and then drive off at the destination without ever leaving your car. That would substantially reduce the wear and tear on the millions of miles of Interstate highways that force us to drive cross-country because we need our vehicles.

We have that rail system here, from Perth to Sydney (The India-Pacific) and from Adelaide to Darwin (The Ghan). We've travelled on both, with our car on a flat bed, and a sleeper cabin to ourselves (around 2 - 3 days for each trip). Very relaxing, watching the desert go past with a G & T in hand...

[piscator]

...like Hunter Thompson driving home from Vegas...

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

What I'd like to see is for the rail network to be expanded and modified. They are proposing high-speed rail from Cheyenne to Albequerque along the Front Range. But they envision it as passenger rail only. The problem is that if I want to go to Santa Fe from Denver, I want my car when I get there. So what they need to do is take a page from the Channel Tunnel and design the rail system so that it carries automobiles (not commercial traffic, which would use a different set of rails) so that you can drive on and then drive off at the destination without ever leaving your car. That would substantially reduce the wear and tear on the millions of miles of Interstate highways that force us to drive cross-country because we need our vehicles.

We have that rail system here, from Perth to Sydney (The India-Pacific) and from Adelaide to Darwin (The Ghan). We've travelled on both, with our car on a flat bed, and a sleeper cabin to ourselves (around 2 - 3 days for each trip). Very relaxing, watching the desert go past with a G & T in hand...

Now imagine a high-speed inter-city link that is drive-on, drive-off that gets you from Sidney to Canberra in 30 minutes. You never even have to get out of your car. Take a nap, do some paperwork, listen to the radio, whatever.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

What I'd like to see is for the rail network to be expanded and modified. They are proposing high-speed rail from Cheyenne to Albequerque along the Front Range. But they envision it as passenger rail only. The problem is that if I want to go to Santa Fe from Denver, I want my car when I get there. So what they need to do is take a page from the Channel Tunnel and design the rail system so that it carries automobiles (not commercial traffic, which would use a different set of rails) so that you can drive on and then drive off at the destination without ever leaving your car. That would substantially reduce the wear and tear on the millions of miles of Interstate highways that force us to drive cross-country because we need our vehicles.

We have that rail system here, from Perth to Sydney (The India-Pacific) and from Adelaide to Darwin (The Ghan). We've travelled on both, with our car on a flat bed, and a sleeper cabin to ourselves (around 2 - 3 days for each trip). Very relaxing, watching the desert go past with a G & T in hand...

Now imagine a high-speed inter-city link that is drive-on, drive-off that gets you from Sidney to Canberra in 30 minutes. You never even have to get out of your car. Take a nap, do some paperwork, listen to the radio, whatever.

More realistically, 2 - 3 hours, but sure. For really long trips, though, I'd want my car on a flat bed, and me in a comfy cabin with toilet facilities and food available...

[mistermack]

We have that rail system here, from Perth to Sydney (The India-Pacific) and from Adelaide to Darwin (The Ghan). We've travelled on both, with our car on a flat bed, and a sleeper cabin to ourselves (around 2 - 3 days for each trip). Very relaxing, watching the desert go past with a G & T in hand...

I suppose it's nice to have your own car when you get there. But how does the economics of that compare to hiring a car? I can't see it being worth it, unless you are going for a very extended stay.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

QuietSpace. The far superior alternative to MySpace - much the same but without autoplay music tracks!

[piscator]

We have that rail system here, from Perth to Sydney (The India-Pacific) and from Adelaide to Darwin (The Ghan). We've travelled on both, with our car on a flat bed, and a sleeper cabin to ourselves (around 2 - 3 days for each trip). Very relaxing, watching the desert go past with a G & T in hand...

I suppose it's nice to have your own car when you get there. But how does the economics of that compare to hiring a car? I can't see it being worth it, unless you are going for a very extended stay.

We have train radios and a Hi-Rail Suburban. Even better, I can set on the rail at a crossing less than a mile from home. Damn Federal Laws obstruct me from doing that without a track warrant from the RR though. Goddamn Marxists. But I could listen in, get a good feel for where the trains are, and time it so they'd never see me driving on their rail, much less meet me in one of those tunnels. I could go all the way to Portage before I'd have to steer or get out of the cruise control. That would be so relaxing... Whaddaya'll think?

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

What I'd like to see is for the rail network to be expanded and modified. They are proposing high-speed rail from Cheyenne to Albequerque along the Front Range. But they envision it as passenger rail only. The problem is that if I want to go to Santa Fe from Denver, I want my car when I get there. So what they need to do is take a page from the Channel Tunnel and design the rail system so that it carries automobiles (not commercial traffic, which would use a different set of rails) so that you can drive on and then drive off at the destination without ever leaving your car. That would substantially reduce the wear and tear on the millions of miles of Interstate highways that force us to drive cross-country because we need our vehicles.

We have that rail system here, from Perth to Sydney (The India-Pacific) and from Adelaide to Darwin (The Ghan). We've travelled on both, with our car on a flat bed, and a sleeper cabin to ourselves (around 2 - 3 days for each trip). Very relaxing, watching the desert go past with a G & T in hand...

Now imagine a high-speed inter-city link that is drive-on, drive-off that gets you from Sidney to Canberra in 30 minutes. You never even have to get out of your car. Take a nap, do some paperwork, listen to the radio, whatever.

More realistically, 2 - 3 hours, but sure. For really long trips, though, I'd want my car on a flat bed, and me in a comfy cabin with toilet facilities and food available...

Two hours to go a hundred klicks at 200 mph?

[Seth]

We have that rail system here, from Perth to Sydney (The India-Pacific) and from Adelaide to Darwin (The Ghan). We've travelled on both, with our car on a flat bed, and a sleeper cabin to ourselves (around 2 - 3 days for each trip). Very relaxing, watching the desert go past with a G & T in hand...

I suppose it's nice to have your own car when you get there. But how does the economics of that compare to hiring a car? I can't see it being worth it, unless you are going for a very extended stay.

When I get there I want to drive MY car, not some rental. The logistics of having hundreds of cars (or thousands of them) available at the rail station so passengers can rent them seems a bit complex. What happens when all the cars are rented and you get there and have no transportation to that important business meeting?

The point of my idea is that people are not likely to give up their own vehicles if they are willing to drive long distances in them at 70 mph just so they can have them when they get there, so the rail system should acknowledge how humans actually behave and travel and make accommodation for them to take their own cars with them rather than trying to force them to adopt new ways of getting around.

Rail is great if you go from your house to the rail station to the rail station to your office at the same time every day, but it's worthless if you don't have a standard schedule that can be accomplished using public transportation links. I'm not talking about commuter rail anyway, I'm talking about long-distance, high-speed rail to reduce long distance interstate driving.

[Seth]

May I suggest a split to a "High-speed rail" thread?

[JimC]

We have that rail system here, from Perth to Sydney (The India-Pacific) and from Adelaide to Darwin (The Ghan). We've travelled on both, with our car on a flat bed, and a sleeper cabin to ourselves (around 2 - 3 days for each trip). Very relaxing, watching the desert go past with a G & T in hand...

I suppose it's nice to have your own car when you get there. But how does the economics of that compare to hiring a car? I can't see it being worth it, unless you are going for a very extended stay.

Yep, in both cases it involved touring the remote outback for a couple of months. But the added cost of putting your car on was actually small, you were mainly paying for cabin and food. And unlimited booze...

[mistermack]

When I get there I want to drive MY car, not some rental. The logistics of having hundreds of cars (or thousands of them) available at the rail station so passengers can rent them seems a bit complex. What happens when all the cars are rented and you get there and have no transportation to that important business meeting?

When you have driverless hire cars, you won't need them to hang around the station. The nearest one makes it's way to you, when you go online and order it for a specific time and place. It drops you off like a taxi and then picks the next hire up. etc. Just like Uber but without the cost of a driver.

So you don't have to park it, or insure it, or fill it up, or wash it, or buy tyres, or take it for it's annual test, or maintain it. You just pay when you use one.
Your question is daft. What happens when all the taxis are taken, and you have no transportation to that important business meeting? Same thing.

But you can afford to have many more driverless taxis waiting around. Because you don't need to pay drivers for sitting around doing nothing.