Hacker News Reader

Comment by ndirish1842 | Hacker News Reader

I wonder how autonomous driving will affect shorter flight commutes. I'll probably never take a car from Philadelphia to LA, but I might prefer to travel by car from Philadelphia to Chicago if I know that I can sleep throughout the car ride (as well as leave whenever is most convenient). When you take into account driving to the airport, checking bags, security, flight delays, baggage claim, and rental cars/driving to your hotel, a 12 hour drive doesn't look nearly as bad, especially when you could leave at 10 PM and wake up at 10 AM arriving at your destination. And it's way less stress compared to the hassle of TSA and flights.

View on HN

This is already happening for me when I travel between SF and LA. There's a bunch of bus routes that offer WiFi and operate through the night.

Why would I fly when I could get on a bus at midnight and then wake up in LA at 7AM? When flying, sometimes my time spent in security is literally longer than my time in air. And that's not even taking cost into account, you can do $40-50 round trip on Greyhound vs. ~$140 for a flight.

And this is why trains are fairly popular in Europe.

Seat width, leg room, baggage limits, noise levels, air temperature, Internet connectivity(cell data vs airplane wifi) and the fact that you're exposed to numerous strangers at risk to your health are all factors that make an individual autonomous car more attractive than an airplane. Airlines will need to do a lot of adapting if they don't want to lose the market for shorter distance travel.

Also once you have fully autonomous with no human oversight vehicles there is no reason they even have to look like a car internally any more, it could be a single bed next to a sit up chair and a table, you could sleep properly while you drive along or sit and work, that would sound pretty pleasant, work for a few hours while it drives, pull over for something to eat then get your head down and wake up at your destination.

Airlines are already marginal for shorter-distances. SJ to LA is (imo) right at the cusp of being worth it. ~5 hours to drive, maybe SLIGHTLY less door-to-door on an airline. Any aircraft delay throws the whole thing off. Add parking at the airport + last mile travel on arrival and financially it only makes sense if the company pays.

I wonder why so many people immediately jump to thinking about a car as an alternative to short distance air travel. Would people in the US never even consider a fast train system as a good option between Philadelphia and Chicago? (If it were built, of course. But self-driving cars need to be built too. But I guess they're easier; I'm just dreaming)

Good point. I'd love if we had high speed rails in the US. I'd take it over a car everyday.

Likely because the TSA issue is something they expect to see infecting the train transport system if it existed and that the car is figuratively and literally a symbol of freedom and the ability to escape the rules of others in the American culture. (Source: I live here.)

Interesting. To me the car is the least free method of transport. I feel like I'm in jail. There are thousands of rules, stay between the lines, listen to all the signs, careful to not hit children, it's so much more stressful than smoking a joint, sitting in a train and reading a book (my preferred way to get around).

>careful to not hit children

What are the rules on trains?

Those East-West train routes don't really have any pent up demand at the moment. http://www.america2050.org/pdf/Where-HSR-Works-Best.pdf. You can see those "islands" between which you would either need to have complete coverage between them like a spider web, or you'd need to travel from philly to DC or NY then over to Chicago. Now, take yourself a self-driving bus over to a large rail hub.....

In the US, rail freight is king. Passenger rail only has priority to the extent that the trains can run on schedule. And they do not run on schedule.

Express service between Philly and Chicago would probably require new, dedicated, above-grade track, and would not be competitive with any of airline, automobile, or bus travel for decades. Existing passenger trains in the US (other than the Acela) just can't get from A to B fast enough--or even just arriving at a predictable time!--to be worth the fare.

It is definitely easier to build a self-driving car than fix passenger rail in the US, probably by two orders of magnitude.

Cost to construct high speed rail is not insignificant. There is not sufficient demand for it given the established interstate highways and air travel industry.

Cars are more flexible for more people. Trains travel to and from fixed points on fixed schedules.

For some reason people get all romantic about the idea of train travel but in the 21st century USA it's not going to happen.

Is Philadelphia to Chicago short distance? It is the equivalent of Paris to Rome.

We have a very robust infrastructure for cars already in place, and it is pretty dynamic. The infrastructure for trains would have to be built and is a lot more static.

In the US cars are also associated with autonomy and independence. The train can take me from Philly to Chicago and I'm on it's schedule, but with a car I'm on my schedule and I can detour to Cincinnati or Detroit. In the US the needs of the individual for the most part trump the need of the masses.

It's easier to imagine that engineers might someday come up with a practical robot chauffeur than to imagine that US federal politics will ever un-bork itself to the extent that reintroducing usable passenger train service might become possible. It's just that much of a mess.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com