HS2 and car automation

[The Ham]

There is much made by those opposed to HS2 about car automation meaning that rail demand is going to fall, and therefore by extension that HS2 will be a waste of money.

I think that there is some flaws in this thinking.

First off, although over any given 12 hour period the is likely to be capacity for more vehicles (especially if they can travel closer at they talk to each other, but there is no certainty​that will be the case) during the rush hours there never going to be enough road space for everyone.

Next, how cheap are driverless cars going to be​. To begin with they are likely to be broadly the same cost as taxis, which will mean that the train will win out on cost easily. Even if they get down in price to 45p per mile (used as the government figure for person car user) there is still going to be a lot of journeys that would still be cheaper to use a train. Even down at 35p per mile (£3,500 per year to travel 10,000 miles, so a car that is cheap to run, buy and maintain) it's still going to be close for a lot of travel.

Then there's the range issue. Given that the assumption is that the automated cars are more likely to be electric that's going to potential limit how far people are likely to be able to travel by an electric car. Meaning that the train could be more convenient.

Finally there's speed, even a car averaging 70mph is going to be slower than most intercity trains and there slower than most of not all HS2 services.

As such I am struggling to see why people would it to use automated cars​to the extent that it would have a significant impact on rail travel and certainly to the point that it will have a significant negative impact on HS2 rail travel. If anything I would suggest that the automation of cars would lead to more long distance rail travel not less. If that were to be the case then it would mean that HS2 would get busier not queiter.

What are others views?

 

[NSEFAN]

Rubber tyres on tarmac is inherently more lossy than metal wheels on metal rails. The very low rolling resistance of trains make them ideal for mass transit, and there's always going to be a need for this because people tend to live in clusters (towns/cities) rather than uniformly spaced out. People also tend to travel at certain times and in similar directions, as not every job is suitable for flexi-time working from home. Given the population density of the UK and how congested the roads already are, I doubt that driverless cars will bring enough benefit to justify the cancellation of HS2 (or tarmacing over existing railways for that matter).

 

[Grinner]

I would agree that automated cars are likely to mean more rail journeys not fewer. The business model is most likely to be a short-term rental, e.g. use an app to call up a car for a specific journey, rather than ownership of the vehicle. I see them mostly being used for the first/last few km of a journey, with rail (or air) for the longer middle section.

 

[Spod]

Ignoring price (which can influence things either way for various reasons), the greatest advantages of rail over car based travel are to be found in long distance high speed journeys and in commuting through areas where road traffic is congested and/or impractical. Rail is a more pleasant mode for a long distance journey, with the ability to move around, use a loo, and interact with your companions. It tends to be more reliable in terms of likelihood of disruption and is usually quicker. I don't think HS2 is under threat from automated cars, indeed they may make it easier to access the more widely spaced stations. For journeys that long, it makes sense to switch to rail for the bulk of the distance.
Where rail will struggle is shorter journeys (through uncongested areas) when people need a car at one end of a journey, and don't see much advantage of rail vs. just taking the car all the way.
Of course, automatic taxis at prices comparable to running a private car do enable more options, such as taking a train even if you need a car at the other end, and also might enable people who can't drive to more easily access stations. But they will also enable some of those who can't drive to stop using public (mass) transport.
It will always be in the government's interests to encourage mass transit, if only to make efficient use of finite energy resources. HS2 should help by giving rail a more glamorous image (like the 'halo' products in fields like cars and graphics cards), causing more people to consider it, even if the reality for local trips is much more prosaic.

 

[gordonthemoron]

if everyone works from home, why would we need motorways?

 

[The Ham]

if everyone works from home, why would we need motorways?

There is one political party who already have a policy to turn motorways into cycle lanes, presumably due to this very reason...

 

[gordonthemoron]

Motorways would be rubbish cycle lanes, see for instance the grid roads in Milton Keynes which are a death trap

 

[najaB]

if everyone works from home, why would we need motorways?

I think that too much is made of 'everyone working from home' - unless people are going to start living at Tesco, McDonalds, B&Q, etc.

 

[Bald Rick]

Things railways are good at:

a) moving large numbers of people at average speeds higher than road transport for the same end to end journey
b) moving heavy / bulky freight at lower cost than road transport for the same end to end journey

That's about it.

Fortunately, HS2 has a royal flush in (a). As do most inter city routes, and most commuter routes. Autonomous cars can't touch it, as they can't achieve the higher average speeds for intercity, and they can't get round the congestion for commuting.

However, if autonomous cars do happen in 'squadron' service (and that's a relatively big if), the rural railway has had it.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Things railways are good at:

a) moving large numbers of people at average speeds higher than road transport for the same end to end journey
b) moving heavy / bulky freight at lower cost than road transport for the same end to end journey

That's about it.

Fortunately, HS2 has a royal flush in (a). As do most inter city routes, and most commuter routes. Autonomous cars can't touch it, as they can't achieve the higher average speeds for intercity, and they can't get round the congestion for commuting.

However, if autonomous cars do happen in 'squadron' service (and that's a relatively big if), the rural railway has had it.

I would argue that the lines that would be most adversely affected by autonomous cars were also just as badly affected by people-driven cars fifty-odd years ago. The lines we've got left are ones where for whatever reason, people choose not to drive even though they could. Some of the possible advantages of traditional and autonomous cars versus rail really don't matter on these routes. Who cares if it is possible to head up to Fort William at five minute intervals? It's a long journey that you're going to plan in advance and treat like a ferry or a plane trip, not like a regular commuting service. Having nice onboard facilities like toilets or refreshments and a nice view is far more important.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Motorways would be rubbish cycle lanes, see for instance the grid roads in Milton Keynes which are a death trap

Er, I think the point is that there wouldn't be any cars on the motorways. Cycling on the grid is not fun (and I nearly got myself killed about 10 years ago doing so to avoid a slightly bumpy bit of Redway) but that's because of the other vehicles, not because of the roads themselves!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would agree that automated cars are likely to mean more rail journeys not fewer. The business model is most likely to be a short-term rental, e.g. use an app to call up a car for a specific journey, rather than ownership of the vehicle. I see them mostly being used for the first/last few km of a journey, with rail (or air) for the longer middle section.

Yes, I would expect this too. Long-distance car journeys, whether automatic or manual, are not to be encouraged because they are very wasteful of energy. A more likely use-case is as you say a very cheap "taxi" or automated bus to the station at each end. As the cost of operating these would be very low (staff being the main cost) rural communities would be much better connected than now.

 

[squizzler]

I regard driverless cars as so far from the current zeitgeist it will not happen anytime soon. Regardless of the merits, we all remember how people fell for the strap-line "take back control" with respect to the referendum on leaving the EU.

People say "an Englishman's home is his castle". As a bicycle user and witness to some pretty aggressive driving, I've come to think that an Englishman also regards his car as his gunboat. With this mindset, why would the British motorist volunteer to become a passenger in Google or Uber's giant Scalextric set?

We will have to see how things develop!

 

[The Ham]

I was reading something today in the BBC about robotics and it was saying that most things are "expected" to be 20 years away, as that is far enough forward that prototypes aren't really expected​ but close enough that most people can get excited about seeing them within their lifetime.

That's not to say that is the case with automated cars, as there are prototypes, but it could mean that the level of uptake that is expected with 20 years may not be as big as it cos be expected to be.

 

[Via Bank]

Regardless of whether or not a human or a computer drives them, cars remain a horrendously inefficient way of moving lots of people around, in terms of road space, energy efficiency and public health.

If we were a sensible country we would be seeking to provide a heavily integrated public transport network, whilst also improving provisioning for walking and cycling in our towns and cities to encourage people to make journeys without getting in a car.

Unfortunately, train operators continue to spend huge sums of money expanding station car parks, and councils' response to congestion is to remove bus lanes and produce ever narrower pavements. I wouldn't be surprised if, as a country, we threw money at automatic cars without stopping to consider whether "the same congestion, but you can read a book in the traffic" is the kind of transport network we want.

And that's a shame.

 

[Bald Rick]

Regardless of whether or not a human or a computer drives them, cars remain a horrendously inefficient way of moving lots of people around, in terms of road space, energy efficiency and public health.

If we were a sensible country we would be seeking to provide a heavily integrated public transport network, whilst also improving provisioning for walking and cycling in our towns and cities to encourage people to make journeys without getting in a car.

Unfortunately, train operators continue to spend huge sums of money expanding station car parks, and councils' response to congestion is to remove bus lanes and produce ever narrower pavements. I wouldn't be surprised if, as a country, we threw money at automatic cars without stopping to consider whether "the same congestion, but you can read a book in the traffic" is the kind of transport network we want.

And that's a shame.

I suggest you read up about it.

I'm reading an interesting book now (Science and the City, by Laurie Winkless) which has a whole section on future use of roads. Whilst making the point that a fully autonomous road network is at least three decades away, it does explain that by removing the variability in driver behaviour, and by having all motorised transport actually comply with the Highway Code, two of the main triggers of congestion can be removed. In turn this has the potential to increase road network capacity. This applies more to roads outside major urban areas, but the point is still valid everywhere.

On another efficiency point, I recently did a 260 mile return trip from the Home Counties to Shropshire by car. It took 4 hours and averaged over 70mpg. Rather efficient in time / cost / cash I'd say.

 

[Via Bank]

I suggest you read up about it.

I am well aware of the benefits of automatic cars and indeed am all for automation wherever possible (on cars and on railways.)

I'm reading an interesting book now (Science and the City, by Laurie Winkless) which has a whole section on future use of roads. Whilst making the point that a fully autonomous road network is at least three decades away, it does explain that by removing the variability in driver behaviour, and by having all motorised transport actually comply with the Highway Code, two of the main triggers of congestion can be removed. In turn this has the potential to increase road network capacity.

And here are the major caveats to this.

First, this implies that all motorised transport will comply with the Highway Code. Will it? Are we going to retrofit cameras and onboard computers to all vintage cars? Motorbikes? Scooters? I can practically hear the howls of enthusiasts through time.

And this is assuming that once installed with self-driving equipment, they do obey the highway code. Let's put aside, for a moment, the potential vector for a large scale cyber-attack.

What is to stop a person who considers himself more important than all around him modifying his car to go faster than it should? To not slow down to a safe speed when it sees vulnerable road users such as pedestrians or cyclists? To protect him at all costs in the event of a collision, even if it puts other road users at risk? This isn't far fetched. Automatic cars run software, and software can be modified.

This applies more to roads outside major urban areas, but the point is still valid everywhere.

Assuming the potential safety problems of modified software can be dealt with, this is true - it may even have positive effects in some urban areas, reducing the number of rat-running pavement parkers and making residential streets more attractive for walking or cycling. But, this leads me on to my next point...

On another efficiency point, I recently did a 260 mile return trip from the Home Counties to Shropshire by car. It took 4 hours and averaged over 70mpg. Rather efficient in time / cost / cash I'd say.

The problem is rarely with longer journeys, but with cars being used to make short, local journeys that can easily be walked. One only has to stand outside a school in the South East to see the number of people who think nothing of driving a very short distance to drop their children off - often because 'it's not safe to walk' or 'the air gets so polluted' (I wonder why that might be? :roll It's even worse outside, say, a corner shop: people will drive for less than a mile to reach the shop, buy a bar of chocolate and a four-pack of lager, then drive back home.

Driving oneself around in a heavy metal box is simply a space-inefficient way of travelling short distances, especially on narrow urban streets originally designed for foot traffic and horses. It causes unnecessary congestion and also delays people making longer distance journeys (such as yours) or journeys that truly have to be made by car.

And in a country with a burgeoning obesity crisis and a creaking health service, do we want to make it as frictionless as possible for people to jump in their cars and drive less than a mile to drop little Oscar off at football practice, rather than walking? Or spend ten minutes in a car with some shopping bags from the supermarket, rather than fifteen minutes on a bicycle with a pannier?

So while I do recognise the benefits of automatic cars, I simply do not believe they are a panacea. In this country, and in America, we have worked ourselves up into a frenzy about them, because we believe they will solve the problems caused by motorised transport without forcing us to change our lifestyles to be less dependent on private car ownership. I do not believe they will solve all of the problems caused by motorised transport, and I still believe that our cultural obsession with private car ownership is unsustainable.

 

[Bald Rick]

The problem is rarely with longer journeys, but with cars being used to make short, local journeys that can easily be walked. One only has to stand outside a school in the South East to see the number of people who think nothing of driving a very short distance to drop their children off - often because 'it's not safe to walk' or 'the air gets so polluted' (I wonder why that might be? :roll It's even worse outside, say, a corner shop: people will drive for less than a mile to reach the shop, buy a bar of chocolate and a four-pack of lager, then drive back home.

Driving oneself around in a heavy metal box is simply a space-inefficient way of travelling short distances, especially on narrow urban streets originally designed for foot traffic and horses. It causes unnecessary congestion and also delays people making longer distance journeys (such as yours) or journeys that truly have to be made by car.

And in a country with a burgeoning obesity crisis and a creaking health service, do we want to make it as frictionless as possible for people to jump in their cars and drive less than a mile to drop little Oscar off at football practice, rather than walking? Or spend ten minutes in a car with some shopping bags from the supermarket, rather than fifteen minutes on a bicycle with a pannier?
.

I agree with all that. But an integrated transport strategy won't solve it. It just needs people to get off their backsides. (I practice as I preach - a two mile walk to the station each morning).

However autonomous cars will have an impact on lower density and mid-distance transport networks, and I believe it will help in feeding HS2 rather than reducing demand.

#backontopic

 

[The Ham]

If automated cars are used like taxis but at a cost of something like 50p a mile (which would be some time after they become mainstream) and so become better value for most than owing their own cars it could cause quite a big change in the way people use cars.

For instance wood you pay £1 to pop to the local shop to buy a pint of milk or would you be more inclined walk?

It is likely that it will highlight the real cost of driving to people, rather than people accepting the fixed costs (purchase, insurance, servicing, etc) and then just costing travel on the basis of just the fuel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can see that I might well give up owning a car were such a thing adequately available. I definitely wouldn't own a car if I lived in London, I'd rent from a car club or conventional rental when needed.

OTOH, that kind of service would kill local bus as a concept and some branch lines.

 

[Bald Rick]

OTOH, that kind of service would kill local bus as a concept and some branch lines.

Precisely!

 

[Via Bank]

If automated cars are used like taxis but at a cost of something like 50p a mile (which would be some time after they become mainstream) and so become better value for most than owing their own cars it could cause quite a big change in the way people use cars.

For instance wood you pay £1 to pop to the local shop to buy a pint of milk or would you be more inclined walk?

It is likely that it will highlight the real cost of driving to people, rather than people accepting the fixed costs (purchase, insurance, servicing, etc) and then just costing travel on the basis of just the fuel.

This, I believe, is critical.

It absolutely must come hand in hand with road pricing, especially in residential areas, to emphasise the considerable environmental pollution and wear on the roads that a private car causes. Autonomous cars combined with the current VED system (which actually exempts electric cars entirely) strikes me as a toxic combination.

 

[NotATrainspott]

If automated cars are used like taxis but at a cost of something like 50p a mile (which would be some time after they become mainstream) and so become better value for most than owing their own cars it could cause quite a big change in the way people use cars.

For instance wood you pay £1 to pop to the local shop to buy a pint of milk or would you be more inclined walk?

It is likely that it will highlight the real cost of driving to people, rather than people accepting the fixed costs (purchase, insurance, servicing, etc) and then just costing travel on the basis of just the fuel.

I can see that I might well give up owning a car were such a thing adequately available. I definitely wouldn't own a car if I lived in London, I'd rent from a car club or conventional rental when needed.

OTOH, that kind of service would kill local bus as a concept and some branch lines.

It wouldn't kill off the local bus concept. It would simply enhance it, by massively blurring the line between private and public transport. Just as seeing the £1 price might make someone want to walk instead, the price for shared transport will be lower than private. Using their smartphones or whatever other smart devices would be available by then, people will be able to clearly see all of the options on the price-privacy-convenience spectra. If you just want to get somewhere as cheaply as possible you'll be able to wait longer and share a larger vehicle with more people. Autonomy doesn't change how people act when it comes to money. That extra £1 a day on private vs. public transport means having £365 less a year to spend on something else that you might get a lot more utility out of.

Allowing rural buses to be smaller means they can run more frequently, thereby making them more useful for people to actually get around. This encourages the people who could have a private car to give it up and use the bus instead but also massively benefits the people who have no choice but to use public transport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It absolutely must come hand in hand with road pricing, especially in residential areas, to emphasise the considerable environmental pollution and wear on the roads that a private car causes. Autonomous cars combined with the current VED system (which actually exempts electric cars entirely) strikes me as a toxic combination.

I am coming round to this view, particularly given that a car that is owned but sitting still is not polluting anything. VED discourages people from owning more than one car, such as a small one for town use and a larger one for moving things around. Taxing use rather than purchase/ownership to me makes massive sense.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It wouldn't kill off the local bus concept. It would simply enhance it, by massively blurring the line between private and public transport. Just as seeing the £1 price might make someone want to walk instead, the price for shared transport will be lower than private.

Will it? The main cost of operating a public transport vehicle (other than an aircraft) is the cost of the driver. Remove that, and there becomes little financial benefit of operating very large vehicles.

Something like UberPool would of course work well, where you share a smaller vehicle or choose to have it to yourself. That's where the difference would be made.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Will it? The main cost of operating a public transport vehicle (other than an aircraft) is the cost of the driver. Remove that, and there becomes little financial benefit of operating very large vehicles.

Something like UberPool would of course work well, where you share a smaller vehicle or choose to have it to yourself. That's where the difference would be made.

Well yes, that was my point. Rural buses would be smaller and more frequent, making them more useful for actually getting around. It doesn't follow that there should be any gap between the UberPool concept and other buses. If a route is best served with 20 seater buses then it'll be served with 20 seater buses.

A big chunk of the improvement comes not from autonomous vehicles but the perfect information sharing that's made possible by smart devices and the internet. UberPool is one of the few practical implementations of that idea so far. Today I'm sure that if everyone just installed an app and used it to plan their normal daily commute you could cause massive optimisation, both by running minibus shuttle services to and from train and metro stations and by allowing people to share vehicle rides. None of that would actually require autonomy to work. However, once autonomy disrupts everything else and people start using apps like Uber for their transport needs, it'll be the inevitable result as they'll see the lower-priced option of sharing. I think we need a full blown transportation marketplace app for things to go right, so that then you could have public transport operators bid for individual journeys as well.

 

[najaB]

I am coming round to this view, particularly given that a car that is owned but sitting still is not polluting anything.

We already tax use (and more importantly pollution) through fuel duty. However, people object violently to any increases for some reason.

 

[DerekC]

Well yes, that was my point. Rural buses would be smaller and more frequent, making them more useful for actually getting around. It doesn't follow that there should be any gap between the UberPool concept and other buses. If a route is best served with 20 seater buses then it'll be served with 20 seater buses.

A big chunk of the improvement comes not from autonomous vehicles but the perfect information sharing that's made possible by smart devices and the internet. UberPool is one of the few practical implementations of that idea so far. Today I'm sure that if everyone just installed an app and used it to plan their normal daily commute you could cause massive optimisation, both by running minibus shuttle services to and from train and metro stations and by allowing people to share vehicle rides. None of that would actually require autonomy to work. However, once autonomy disrupts everything else and people start using apps like Uber for their transport needs, it'll be the inevitable result as they'll see the lower-priced option of sharing. I think we need a full blown transportation marketplace app for things to go right, so that then you could have public transport operators bid for individual journeys as well.

I think that's what is now being called "Mobility as a Service" - see the following link:

https://ts.catapult.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Mobility-as-a-Service_Exploring-the-Opportunity-for-MaaS-in-the-UK-Web.pdf

 

[HowardGWR]

I didn't understand the direction of latest posts so turned back to the OP and read forward.

I cannot for the life of me understand why this thread is in the HSR section.

Perhaps we should have a 'local transport' sub-forum?

 

[Bletchleyite]

We already tax use (and more importantly pollution) through fuel duty. However, people object violently to any increases for some reason.

We do, but electric vehicles will render that charge ineffective, hence road pricing.