![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/10/13/future-transportation-not-cars-autonomous/
(which summarizes and reports on https://nacto.org/2019/09/09/blueprint-for-autonomous-urbanism-2/ If you download the PDF, know that it's 100+ MB in size.)
"The landscape created by car dependence led to increased racial and economic segregation, abysmally high traffic fatalities, increasingly long commutes, and rising global temperatures and emissions."
"If AV technologies focus on private cars and single occupancy vehicles, they will increase congestion and traffic fatalities, exacerbate economic and racial inequalities, and leave us even less equipped to mitigate the impacts of climate change. To avert this dystopian outcome, cities must prioritize the modes that move people efficiently."
13 lanes are required to move 800 vehicles per lane each hour to get to 10,000/hour
"skyports could accommodate 1,000 landings per hour on a footprint of 1 to 2 acres, so NACTO extrapolates that if there are four passengers per vehicle, to achieve the 10,000 passengers per hour 2.5 to 5 acres of space are required"
"If there were two bus-only lanes measuring just 23 feet wide, 80 buses per hour could move the 10,000. And that volume could be handled by a sidewalk or a protected bike lane measuring just 12 to 15 feet wide."
"In urban areas, fixed-route transit in designated rights-of-way is the most efficient way to move people in large numbers.... The bus’s advantage comes from having riders come to it, rather than the other way around."
****
No mention of trains, at least in the autoblog summary. A single subway 'lane' could move 20,000-40,000 people per hour! (This gets 30,000 and I think is using low train car capacity; 200 seems better. 6 cars/train * 200/car * 24 trains/hour = 28,800 people/hour; 10 cars and 30 trains/hour would be 60,000 people/hour.)
Looking at the PDF, no mention of trains, though I saw a trolley in a drawing. Oh wait, on page 49 they do mention "on-street transitways, bus or rail", giving them the same capacity... which might be true, but rail would have lower labor costs! Less so if you assume everything's automated in the future, I guess.
(which summarizes and reports on https://nacto.org/2019/09/09/blueprint-for-autonomous-urbanism-2/ If you download the PDF, know that it's 100+ MB in size.)
"The landscape created by car dependence led to increased racial and economic segregation, abysmally high traffic fatalities, increasingly long commutes, and rising global temperatures and emissions."
"If AV technologies focus on private cars and single occupancy vehicles, they will increase congestion and traffic fatalities, exacerbate economic and racial inequalities, and leave us even less equipped to mitigate the impacts of climate change. To avert this dystopian outcome, cities must prioritize the modes that move people efficiently."
13 lanes are required to move 800 vehicles per lane each hour to get to 10,000/hour
"skyports could accommodate 1,000 landings per hour on a footprint of 1 to 2 acres, so NACTO extrapolates that if there are four passengers per vehicle, to achieve the 10,000 passengers per hour 2.5 to 5 acres of space are required"
"If there were two bus-only lanes measuring just 23 feet wide, 80 buses per hour could move the 10,000. And that volume could be handled by a sidewalk or a protected bike lane measuring just 12 to 15 feet wide."
"In urban areas, fixed-route transit in designated rights-of-way is the most efficient way to move people in large numbers.... The bus’s advantage comes from having riders come to it, rather than the other way around."
****
No mention of trains, at least in the autoblog summary. A single subway 'lane' could move 20,000-40,000 people per hour! (This gets 30,000 and I think is using low train car capacity; 200 seems better. 6 cars/train * 200/car * 24 trains/hour = 28,800 people/hour; 10 cars and 30 trains/hour would be 60,000 people/hour.)
Looking at the PDF, no mention of trains, though I saw a trolley in a drawing. Oh wait, on page 49 they do mention "on-street transitways, bus or rail", giving them the same capacity... which might be true, but rail would have lower labor costs! Less so if you assume everything's automated in the future, I guess.