 |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |
PHOTO: 20TH CENTURY FOX/EVERETT COLLECTION (AVATAR) OVERVIEW Randal O’Toole argues that the future of safe and efficient transportation lies in driverless cars. Driverless cars, he says, would ease highway congestion and provide mobility to more people. Improved automotive technology would be a better investment for taxpayers than infrastructure for passenger railroads, he argues. LINKS: |
Get Beyond the Wheel
By RANDAL O’TOOLE “Your grandchildren will snap across the entire continent in 24 hours on a new kind of highway and in a new kind of driverless car that is controlled by the push of a button,” futurist Norman Bel Geddes promised in 1940. Seventy years after Mr. Bel Geddes’s promise, the driverless car is finally close to reality. Consumers today can buy cars that steer themselves; accelerate and brake to maintain a safe driving distance from cars ahead; and detect and avoid collisions with other cars on all sides. Making them completely driverless would involve little more than a software upgrade. Yet the potential for advanced personal mobility is being ignored in debates over surface transportation. These debates crop up every six years, when Congress decides how to spend federal gasoline-tax revenues. For the next reauthorization, set for 2011, the Obama administration and Congress have focused on a new national high-speed rail system—as well as streetcars, light rail and other projects—to reduce driving and congestion. ONE INCH Driverless cars could all but end the hand-wringing over roads vs. rails. Driverless technologies were demonstrated in 1997 on a California freeway when eight cars without drivers successfully operated just one car length apart at 65 miles per hour. In 2007, six cars negotiated the Defense Department’s Urban Challenge, following all traffic rules in an urban environment with other vehicles. Volkswagen says enhanced GPS systems can keep cars within an inch of their desired location on streets Driverless vehicles offer huge advantages over current autos. Because computer reaction times are faster, driverless cars can safely operate more closely together, potentially tripling highway capacity. This would virtually eliminate congestion and reduce the need for new road construction. Toyota’s recent recalls naturally lead to worries that computer glitches could cause serious accidents. But since each car would be independently controlled, a failure in one would simply lead others to avoid that car. Modern cars already have built-in computers that perform certain functions, such as antilock braking, more reliably than humans can. Any serious problems could be quickly corrected through wireless software upgrades. Driverless cars and trucks would be safer. They would also be greener, first by significantly reducing congestion, and eventually because vehicles could be lighter due to the reduced collision risks. Perhaps most important, driverless vehicles would bring mobility to everyone, not just those able to pass a driver’s test. While many people will still choose to own a car, increased numbers may rely on car-sharing. Outside of ultra-high-density areas such as Manhattan, driverless cars would render urban transit and intercity passenger trains even more obsolete than they are today. START PREPARING NOW In 2007, General Motors’ vice president of research, Lawrence Burns, predicted that completely driverless cars would be on the market by 2018. If his prediction is correct, we could have a completely driverless system by 2036. State highway officials could accelerate this timetable by working with auto makers to set standards and a transition path. State and local highway agencies could install wireless communication systems at major intersections and highways—a much less costly undertaking than building new roads, much less high-speed rail. President Obama’s so-called high-speed rail plan mostly consists of moderate-speed trains running at top speeds of 90 to 110 miles per hour, speeds attained by many railroads in the 1930s. This will attract few people out of their cars. The proposals for trains running at 160 to 220 miles per hour in California and Florida will cost at least 10 times as much to build as the 110-mph lines, but they are not likely to attract 10 times as many passengers. As railroad executive Matt Rose testified to Congress last year, building a national network of true high-speed rail lines would cost roughly $1 trillion, more than twice as much as the inflation-adjusted cost of the Interstate Highway System. While interstates paid for themselves out of gas taxes and other road user fees, all the capital and billions of dollars of annual operating costs of high-speed rail will be borne by general taxpayers, most of whom will rarely ride the trains. Amtrak’s high-speed Acela trains between Boston and Washington cover most of their operating (but not capital) costs. To do so, fares are some 10 times greater than many relatively unsubsidized bus services that carry about three times as many passengers in the northeast corridor as the Acela. Claims that trains are environmentally friendly may apply to freight trains but not passenger trains. A 50-ton railcar can carry 100 tons of cargo, making freight trains highly energy-efficient. However, a 50-ton passenger car carries only about 15 tons (170 people) and more typically carries about two to three tons (25 to 35 people), resulting in average weights per passenger that are several times greater than for cars or buses. TURNING BACK THE CLOCK A return to rails would turn the clock back to a time when only the wealthy had access to easy mobility. The 19th century witnessed several amazing transportation breakthroughs, including steamboats, steam trains and electric streetcars. Yet in 1910, most Americans enjoyed little more personal mobility than they had 100 years prior. High fares for steamboats and passenger trains mainly limited such travel to the wealthy. Streetcars served only urban areas and were popular with the upper classes. The revolution that finally brought mobility to the masses was Henry Ford’s low-cost Model T, which most factory workers could afford. Since 1910, individual travel has grown from an average of about 3,000 to well over 18,000 miles per year. Cars contributed to a sevenfold increase in personal incomes. Automobiles continue to maintain a huge cost advantage over passenger rail. Counting both subsidies and personal costs, Americans spend less than 25 cents a passenger mile on autos, nearly 60 cents a passenger mile on Amtrak, and more than 90 cents a passenger mile on urban transit. No wonder 85% of all our passenger travel is by automobile. The call to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to build the world’s finest, 1930s-era transportation network would benefit the wealthy and those willing to live and work in expensive quarters near rail stations. In contrast, the driverless scenario relies on new technology, not old; and will largely be self-funded by users rather than paid out of tax dollars. Most important, driverless vehicles will bring mobility to almost everyone. —Randal O’Toole is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and author of “Gridlock: Why We’re Stuck in Traffic and What to Do About It.”
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
