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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
