If anything, the congestion caused by all those new self-driving cars would make public transit even more sensible for high-density areas.

Speaking of that last part, I think you once referred to me as a "public transportation meatball." I don't think that's entirely true. I think rapid transit and commuter rail are great, but only in a handful of major American cities. Light rail is almost always a giant waste of everybody's money. Nobody needs trains in fucking Salt Lake City or Charlotte or [Insert Fast-Growing Sun Belt City Here]. They go for like six miles, make eight stops, cost a zillion dollars, and no one uses them. Basically, the only cities worthy of seriously spending on rail infrastructure are the ones that already have serious rail infrastructure: NY tri-state area, Chicago, Boston, Philly, SF, DC

Public transportation almost always sucks. It sucks everywhere in the United States. The only reason it exists more is because in some circumstances driving sucks more and because people currently go to work mostly at the same time and you need a solution for certain time periods.

Not to mention that a mere 2 blocks west there is a Red Line stop at Cermak.

$75 million to build a station at Washington/Wabash. Doesn't say how much it'll cost to demolish Randolph/Wabash and Madison/Wabash. Knocking out Randolph seems pretty cruel for people who need to make Electric/South Shore transfers and would prefer not to freeze when doing so.

At least one of the two has some decent historical value, but I can't remember which.


As a facebook commenter points out, this roof, while a "nice" architectural flourish, fails to protect anyone from precipitation. Derp.

Another reason why public transportation sucks.

I can't wait until we have self driving cars and the problem of public transportation is solved.

That would be great, but it doesn't address the fact that the infrastructure and density patterns of Chicago aren't conducive to driving. Even if my car drove itself down the Kennedy from Busse Woods to the Loop, I wouldn't want to.

tim tebow will win a super bowl before you can take a nap while driving.

That would be great, but it doesn't address the fact that the infrastructure and density patterns of Chicago aren't conducive to driving. Even if my car drove itself down the Kennedy from Busse Woods to the Loop, I wouldn't want to.

So, then instead of parking, does your auto car head back to your house and park itself in the garage, then come back to get you at the end of the day?

Maybe it and the other cars can head up to Wrigley and catch a game while we're at work.

Future Impact of Self-Driving Cars Would Be Big: Study
By Ben Klayman | August 15, 2012
busy-road

Email This
Print
Newsletters

inShare22

Article
17 Comments

Consulting firm KPMG and the Center for Automotive Research in Michigan released a report this month about how close the industry is to rolling out self-driving cars. They see the first such vehicles hitting showrooms in 2019, with a more developed infrastructure by 2025.

However, KPMG and CAR said the implications of a totally driverless car that doesn’t crash would be huge:

Automakers cut weight from cars and trucks as crashless cars do not need to be made with as much reinforced steel or as many safety devices like airbags. That would lower vehicle costs, speed up vehicle development time and boost fuel efficiency.
Automated cars would drive in tighter packs because computers would control their speed and spacing. That would mean smaller roads were necessary and result in the elimination of shoulders and guardrails, leading to a significant reduction in the $75 billion spent annually on roads, highways and other infrastructure.
With computers controlling the cars, driving would be more efficient and thus faster, leading to less congestion on the roads. Fuel consumption would decline and companies that rely on just-in-time delivery could reduce inventories even further.
Automated cars also would allow for the elimination of traffic and road lights in many cases. That would slash energy use drastically.
Driverless cars would mean a change in the way drivers are insured, and could even end the need for car insurance.
Hospitals would lose more than two million crash victims sent annually to U.S. emergency rooms.
Crashless cars would mean auto repair shops see fewer damaged cars, meaning they would need to shift their business model to serving the aftermarket needs of existing cars that lack autonomous driving systems.
Steelmakers would have to adjust to a world where cars use less of their product.
State and local governments would have to adjust to the loss of traffic fines, possibly reducing their police forces. Governments might seek to replace some of that lost revenue; perhaps with infrastructure usage fees.
Less expensive, driverless cars would open ownership to new audiences like younger generations or even the blind, but they also could lead to wider vehicle sharing that would slash global sales.
If vehicle sharing expanded, cars could be summoned as needed and people could pay for mobility services as needed instead of owning a vehicle.
Autonomous transportation could eliminate the need for and cost of high-speed trains.
Vehicle sharing could keep vehicles in more constant use, reducing the need for parking lots that take up a lot of land in cities.
Lighter, easier-to-build cars could open the auto industry to new rivals using a model like Apple’s, where a company designs and markets a product but outsources its construction.
A connected, driverless car network would require security from hackers and would raise privacy concerns with many consumers.

That's a fuck-load for some baffle gates, motorized stairs and a place to stand.