The Next Generation of the Interstate

[GaryV]

Runflat or airless tires

What about the other several hundred ways a vehicle can break down mechanically?  Or have IT issues involving the systems that would make this kind of thing operate...

Aircraft have thousands of ways they could break down mechanically. And yet they are the safest means of travel.

And yet they still have failures. The point that you are seeming to not understand is that there will be failures. And if those failures happen at 150 mph with very little vehicle spacing, the result will be catastrophic. And it doesn't even need to be a vehicle failure. What happens if a car in this 150 mph platoon hits a large animal on the road?

[kernals12]

Runflat or airless tires

What about the other several hundred ways a vehicle can break down mechanically?  Or have IT issues involving the systems that would make this kind of thing operate...

Aircraft have thousands of ways they could break down mechanically. And yet they are the safest means of travel.

And yet they still have failures. The point that you are seeming to not understand is that there will be failures. And if those failures happen at 150 mph with very little vehicle spacing, the result will be catastrophic. And it doesn't even need to be a vehicle failure. What happens if a car in this 150 mph platoon hits a large animal on the road?

Just add it to the long, long list of risks we all implicitly take in our everyday lives.

[kernals12]

Aircraft have thousands of ways they could break down mechanically. And yet they are the safest means of travel.

Do you know much more expensive passenger cars would be if all instances of "single point of failure" had to be eliminated, as they are for aircraft?

Or inspected prior to every use by a qualified technician.

That's doable, with the "technician" being the car's own electronic brain.

Ah yes, it isn't as though a human would ever ignore onboard diagnostics or defer maintenance.

They wouldn't do that if their cars refused to move in such cases.

[kernals12]

That's doable, with the "technician" being the car's own electronic brain.

There are so many points of failure that aren't monitored by the car's computer.

Just as an example, the a/c compressor seizing up at low speed.  If the serpentine belt doesn't snap, then it can immediately stall the engine.

That's one example of a problem that's eliminated in EVs

[freebrickproductions]

Runflat or airless tires

What about the other several hundred ways a vehicle can break down mechanically?  Or have IT issues involving the systems that would make this kind of thing operate...

Aircraft have thousands of ways they could break down mechanically. And yet they are the safest means of travel.

And yet they still have failures. The point that you are seeming to not understand is that there will be failures. And if those failures happen at 150 mph with very little vehicle spacing, the result will be catastrophic. And it doesn't even need to be a vehicle failure. What happens if a car in this 150 mph platoon hits a large animal on the road?

Just add it to the long, long list of risks we all implicitly take in our everyday lives.

You still haven't answered the question.

Regardless, any vehicles that are going to be moving at 150 MPH on one of these highways will have to be built to be able to handle hitting something (a large animal like a deer or moose, another vehicle, a pothole, a wall, etc.) at 150 MPH without killing the occupants of said vehicle.

And, in all honesty, every single time you make a post talking about 150 MPH highways, you keep ignoring that we as a species basically already have developed just that, and put it in the most optimal form:

[Max Rockatansky]

Aircraft have thousands of ways they could break down mechanically. And yet they are the safest means of travel.

Do you know much more expensive passenger cars would be if all instances of "single point of failure" had to be eliminated, as they are for aircraft?

Or inspected prior to every use by a qualified technician.

That's doable, with the "technician" being the car's own electronic brain.

Ah yes, it isn't as though a human would ever ignore onboard diagnostics or defer maintenance.

They wouldn't do that if their cars refused to move in such cases.

Yes, because everyone is universally on board with more regulations over driving right?

[kphoger]

That's one example of a problem that's eliminated in EVs

OK, then, another example.  One of the control arms breaks while driving at 150 mph.  That's something that is not monitored by the car's computer, and it is not eliminated in EVs.  Or if your front wheel bearing goes out.  Or if a tie rod comes loose from the steering rack.  Or a bunch of other stuff that isn't monitored by the computer and still exists on EVs.

[Max Rockatansky]

That's one example of a problem that's eliminated in EVs

OK, then, another example.  One of the control arms breaks while driving at 150 mph.  That's something that is not monitored by the car's computer, and it is not eliminated in EVs.  Or if your front wheel bearing goes out.  Or if a tie rod comes loose from the steering rack.  Or a bunch of other stuff that isn't monitored by the computer and still exists on EVs.

Surely none of those would break.  These are EVs we are talking about, they don't have parts subject to wear and tear. 

[Scott5114]

Aircraft have thousands of ways they could break down mechanically. And yet they are the safest means of travel.

Do you know much more expensive passenger cars would be if all instances of "single point of failure" had to be eliminated, as they are for aircraft?

Or inspected prior to every use by a qualified technician.

That's doable, with the "technician" being the car's own electronic brain.

Ah yes, it isn't as though a human would ever ignore onboard diagnostics or defer maintenance.

They wouldn't do that if their cars refused to move in such cases.

That would be a lot of fun if you had a bad sensor. Nothing wrong with your car, but you can't go to work because it doesn't want you to.

Why is it that every one of your high-tech driving posts makes taking the damn bus seem like a more appealing option?

[Max Rockatansky]

Aircraft have thousands of ways they could break down mechanically. And yet they are the safest means of travel.

Do you know much more expensive passenger cars would be if all instances of "single point of failure" had to be eliminated, as they are for aircraft?

Or inspected prior to every use by a qualified technician.

That's doable, with the "technician" being the car's own electronic brain.

Ah yes, it isn't as though a human would ever ignore onboard diagnostics or defer maintenance.

They wouldn't do that if their cars refused to move in such cases.

That would be a lot of fun if you had a bad sensor. Nothing wrong with your car, but you can't go to work because it doesn't want you to.

Why is it that every one of your high-tech driving posts makes taking the damn bus seem like a more appealing option?

Basically what K12 wants is a personalized bus and/or train like vehicle. 

[kernals12]

That's one example of a problem that's eliminated in EVs

OK, then, another example.  One of the control arms breaks while driving at 150 mph.  That's something that is not monitored by the car's computer, and it is not eliminated in EVs.  Or if your front wheel bearing goes out.  Or if a tie rod comes loose from the steering rack.  Or a bunch of other stuff that isn't monitored by the computer and still exists on EVs.

They could use fiber optic sensors that would provide information about when something is about to break.

And, in all honesty, every single time you make a post talking about 150 MPH highways, you keep ignoring that we as a species basically already have developed just that, and put it in the most optimal form:

That is not optimal. It doesn't go door to door and runs on a fixed schedule.
 

[Scott5114]

They could use fiber optic sensors that would provide information about when something is about to break.

And when the sensors break?

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm amused at all the hand waving and dismissal over parts breaking down over time.  All these threads have maintenance not being required as a basic assumption. 

[GaryV]

They could use fiber optic sensors that would provide information about when something is about to break.

And what then? You're going 150 mph in a closely spaced platoon of vehicles. The car stops because something might break?

[kphoger]

That would be a lot of fun if you had a bad sensor. Nothing wrong with your car, but you can't go to work because it doesn't want you to.

That's kind of a reality already.

When my wife and I first got married, she came with a '99 Dodge Stratus.  We drove from Herrin (IL) to Chicago and back one time and, on the way back, the speedometer needle started going berserk.  It would shoot all the way up to 100 mph, then down to zero, and stuff like that.  I got off I-57 at Whittington, pulled into a parking lot, turned the car off, then turned it back on again.  From that point on, the car refused to shift into anything higher than second gear.  So we drove the 25½ miles home at 25 mph.  And Route 37 had no shoulders, so every driver coming up behind us was ticked off the whole way.  We took it to the dealership the next day (which was also out of town, so another fun drive in second gear), and they determined that the only problem was a bad speed sensor.

|kernals12| wants to add even more sensors.  More sensors that can fail.  More sensors that prevent the car from operating when nothing is mechanically wrong with it.

They could use fiber optic sensors that would provide information about when something is about to break.

And when the sensors break?

As someone who works in an industry that uses fiber optic...  Yeah, they'll break.  All the time.

[Max Rockatansky]

The fiber optic cables I now use for IP based CCTV systems break down all the time.  The older coaxial stuff going to analog cameras usually lasted 15-20 years in-field. 

[kphoger]

I'm not even sure how a fiber optic sensor is supposed to tell you if the nuts on your car's tie rod ends are torqued down enough.

But, whatever.  Let's just assume for giggles that every point of failure in the entire vehicle is hooked up with fiber optic sensors that can prevent all breakdowns without exception.  How expensive is this vehicle?

[kernals12]

I'm amused at all the hand waving and dismissal over parts breaking down over time.  All these threads have maintenance not being required as a basic assumption. 

I'm amused that you think a car that can drive itself can't detect if one of its wheels is about to fly off.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm amused at all the hand waving and dismissal over parts breaking down over time.  All these threads have maintenance not being required as a basic assumption. 

I'm amused that you think a car that can drive itself can't detect if one of its wheels is about to fly off.

Statements like this make it really apparent that you have never worked on a car nor run cabling of any kind.  But don't let me get in the way of the blanket dismissals of anyone questioning your logic. 

[formulanone]

Not these 150 mph roadways with minimal vehicle spacing again...do you realize that an aircraft lands from approximately 120-140 mph, and requires at about 5000-7000 feet to come to a halt and that allows for spacing of approximately 60 seconds apart (for narrow-body aircraft) between landings, meaning that distance is about 2-4 miles of separation?

Now a road car will be much lighter, but will still require between 500 and 750 feet to come to a halt, using some firm braking. Thankfully, Car & Driver has already performed that kind of testing, because...science!



Since these are performance vehicles, the braking components can take a hammering; but from those speeds, it probably only do so a few dozen times before seriously wearing out. That's a $1000-3000 pad-and-rotor job (per axle). That kind of braking also feels somewhere between a "surprise punch to the gut" to "landing on a aircraft carrier". (Oh, just add a five-point harness...okay, then it's just a gentle kick in the glands.)

The amount of fuel consumed at those speeds also increases, as the amount of power required to go 10 more miles per hour at a top speed, requires 33% more horsepower, given weight, statics, and aerodynamics are held to a constant (more power takes up more engine weight, possible transaxle heft, and ancillary additions like cooling and bracing also play a part). The force by pushing the vehicle's frontal area into the air resisting that forward motion is to blame, there's no getting around that; it too, increases with speed. So going that much quicker is a drain on fuel or electricity.

Oh, and sensors on everything is absurdist. There's no realistic real-time way to measure under-torquing, over-torquing, vibration, flexing, and jouncing of every suspension component to see if it's functioning. The amount of movement would make it difficult to detect acceptable ranges of operation. Some types of active suspension can do these things, but they're monitoring road and bounding and rebounding of suspension, not waiting for cracks to appear.

Having the vehicle inspected every 6-12 months would probably reveal most of these problems before they occur but the increased speeds you're mentioning will exacerbate damage to these components much quicker than before. While the Porsche customer will likely fork over thousands for a repair in the name of safety without a second thought, many people do not have that kind of luxury.

[kernals12]

Moving on from your guys' bad faith arguments that invoke exceedingly rare failure scenarios, another interesting advance in highway construction would be in the form of floating tunnels. Norway plans to build one. They are ideal for roads that need to cross over very deep bodies of water where a normal bridge would be technically infeasible like across Washington's Puget Sound or even between the Hawaiian islands.

[Max Rockatansky]

How is people pointing out the things are saying aren't correct or not as easy you claim "bad faith?" 

[freebrickproductions]

And, in all honesty, every single time you make a post talking about 150 MPH highways, you keep ignoring that we as a species basically already have developed just that, and put it in the most optimal form:

That is not optimal. It doesn't go door to door...

Do Interstates go "door to door"? Will the 150 MPH AI-driven "superhighways" you keep pointlessly proposing go "door to door"?

and runs on a fixed schedule.

You say that like a fixed schedule is:
#1. Inherently a bad thing
#2. Something that can't be worked around
#3. Can't have the headways reduced if needed
#4. What your proposed highways won't wind-up having to have with how you want them to be run, in order to better deal with things like breakdowns and/or accidents.

Again, what you keep proposing with these things is basically already achieved with proper high speed rail.

How is people pointing out the things are saying aren't correct or not as easy you claim "bad faith?" 

If this all turned-out to be kernals is trying to make some kind of point about how he feels certain ideas from urbanists are, in his view, unrealistic and/or how they respond to said "unrealistic" ideas, then fair enough to him I guess...
But I also suspect he's a True Believer™ in this as well...

[Max Rockatansky]

Aside from not wanting to share a vehicle he sure checks a lot of the boxes you'd expect from the Urbanism crowd. 

[PColumbus73]

As @formulanone said, fuel consumption and wear and tear increase the faster we travel so any time savings and economic benefits would have to overcome these costs to the consumer. And as I somewhat mentioned earlier, vehicles in America are trending toward larger and heavier, including EVs, thus increasing maintenance costs for state DOTs.

Not to mention the more strict design standards of a highway capable of safely handling a design speed of 150 MPH and the liability the state DOTs would be taking on with the increase of unsurvivable, high-speed crashes.