The Next Generation of the Interstate

[Scott5114]

exceedingly rare failure scenarios

Oh, you've never owned a car before. That makes sense.

[kernals12]

Do Interstates go "door to door"?

No, but the cars that use them do.

[kernals12]

Racecars show that vehicles can be made survivable even in a crash at extremely high speed.

[Rothman]

Racecars show that vehicles can be made survivable even in a crash at extremely high speed.

You wear the fireproof suit.

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^

Suits made of material which breaks down relatively quickly.

Racecars show that vehicles can be made survivable even in a crash at extremely high speed.

And they can also cost millions of dollars in some series like F1.  Most sources cite your average NASCAR Cup car as costing between 400-500k.  Race cars don't include amenities expected in passenger vehicles. 

Are you suggesting the price of cars should be raised to where the average consumer can no longer afford them?  How very Urbanist of you.

[PColumbus73]

Then you realize how destructive crashes in NASCAR races can be. Now apply that to an interstate with a grass median and oncoming traffic. Apply a winter pile-up involving 80 cars and trucks or so to a 150 MPH highway.

Are we expecting an average person, including children, to wear helmets and fire suits? Cars designed like NASCARS with roll cages would make extraction by first responders a nightmare.

[Max Rockatansky]

Never mind the fact that Dale Earnhardt's death was the result of an almost 150 MPH direct impact into the retaining wall.  He had a lap belt altered out of spec and it broke upon impact.  If one of the most notable race car drivers ever wasn't constantly in spec for safety the average person won't be either.  And that isn't even getting into stuff like the HANS device or safer barriers which came after Earnhardt's death. 

[kphoger]

Cars autonomous driven and able to communicate with each other will be able to maintain much smaller gaps with vehicles in front of them and to the side. We could bring the capacity of each lane from the current 2000 per hour up conservatively to 4000, possibly 8000 and one study suggested 12000. And traffic lanes could be made narrower since AVs will be able to maintain prefectly straight lines. 10 feet would be enough for general purpose lanes and 8 feet would be able to accommodate light duty vehicles. We may even be able to do without shoulders. All of this means highways will need a lot less right of way for a given capacity.

And removing error prone human drivers should allow higher speeds. Specially designed "superfreeways" with widely spaced interchanges could accommodate speeds of 150 mph.

Racecars show that vehicles can be made survivable even in a crash at extremely high speed.

Our issue isn't necessarily that a crash wouldn't be survivable.  My main issues are that, with a 15%–30% reduction in lane width, the removal of shoulders, and a doubling of traffic speeds:

(1) Even the near-elimination of perception time and reaction time wouldn't give the driverless vehicles enough time to avoid colliding with a hazard;

(2) Even with sufficient time for evasive or avoidance maneuvering, there would not be a suitable escape path in many situations;  and

(3) You think this can all be prevented by simply upgrading the vehicles' tech.

[freebrickproductions]

Do Interstates go "door to door"?

No, but the cars that use them do.

https://www.amtrak.com/auto-train

And for the "150 MPH AI-powered superhighways", just combine the above link with this:

[Max Rockatansky]

Being "Futurist" seems to entail the following:

-  Not having designed any new technology yourself.
-  An assumption that every economic barrier is easy to overcome.   
-  Completely dismissing all human and political factors.
-  Blaming others when your favorite idea aren't well received. 

[kernals12]

Cars autonomous driven and able to communicate with each other will be able to maintain much smaller gaps with vehicles in front of them and to the side. We could bring the capacity of each lane from the current 2000 per hour up conservatively to 4000, possibly 8000 and one study suggested 12000. And traffic lanes could be made narrower since AVs will be able to maintain prefectly straight lines. 10 feet would be enough for general purpose lanes and 8 feet would be able to accommodate light duty vehicles. We may even be able to do without shoulders. All of this means highways will need a lot less right of way for a given capacity.

And removing error prone human drivers should allow higher speeds. Specially designed "superfreeways" with widely spaced interchanges could accommodate speeds of 150 mph.

Racecars show that vehicles can be made survivable even in a crash at extremely high speed.

Our issue isn't necessarily that a crash wouldn't be survivable.  My main issues are that, with a 15%–30% reduction in lane width, the removal of shoulders, and a doubling of traffic speeds:

(1) Even the near-elimination of perception time and reaction time wouldn't give the driverless vehicles enough time to avoid colliding with a hazard;

(2) Even with sufficient time for evasive or avoidance maneuvering, there would not be a suitable escape path in many situations;  and

(3) You think this can all be prevented by simply upgrading the vehicles' tech.

You're conflating two of my ideas. Superfreeways would probably have wider lanes and shoulders. Regular freeways would retain current speeds but have narrower lanes and no shoulders.

[Scott5114]

You're conflating two of my ideas. Superfreeways would probably have wider lanes and shoulders. Regular freeways would retain current speeds but have narrower lanes and no shoulders.

See, between this and the bus, I think riding the bus sounds better. I don't want to fucking deal with that as a driver.

[Max Rockatansky]

You're conflating two of my ideas. Superfreeways would probably have wider lanes and shoulders. Regular freeways would retain current speeds but have narrower lanes and no shoulders.

See, between this and the bus, I think riding the bus sounds better. I don't want to fucking deal with that as a driver.

What K12 is describing for a regular freeway is a Mexican Autopista.  There are definitely safety drawbacks for having narrower lanes and a small exterior shoulder.  It always fun dodging trucks broken down halfway into the travel lanes at 110 KMH. 

[Scott5114]

What K12 is describing is a Mexican Autopista.

Or an Oklahoma work zone. I despised driving through those, with the concrete walls right up next to the edge lines—my family always called them "cattle chutes".

[kernals12]

You're conflating two of my ideas. Superfreeways would probably have wider lanes and shoulders. Regular freeways would retain current speeds but have narrower lanes and no shoulders.

See, between this and the bus, I think riding the bus sounds better. I don't want to fucking deal with that as a driver.

Except the buses will also be using these new highways.

You're conflating two of my ideas. Superfreeways would probably have wider lanes and shoulders. Regular freeways would retain current speeds but have narrower lanes and no shoulders.

See, between this and the bus, I think riding the bus sounds better. I don't want to fucking deal with that as a driver.

What K12 is describing is a Mexican Autopista.  There are definitely safety drawbacks for having narrower lanes and a small exterior shoulder.  It always fun dodging trucks broken down halfway into the travel lanes at 110 KMH. 

But you won't be dodging them, it'll all be automatic

[Scott5114]

You're conflating two of my ideas. Superfreeways would probably have wider lanes and shoulders. Regular freeways would retain current speeds but have narrower lanes and no shoulders.

See, between this and the bus, I think riding the bus sounds better. I don't want to fucking deal with that as a driver.

Except the buses will also be using these new highways.

No they won't. I won't let them.

(Seriously, though, none of the buses here use the freeways, so I don't know why they'd suddenly start just because you made them worse.)

[Max Rockatansky]

What K12 is describing is a Mexican Autopista.

Or an Oklahoma work zone. I despised driving through those, with the concrete walls right up next to the edge lines—my family always called them "cattle chutes".

Caltrans has started to deploying the cattle chutes almost every construction zone on CA 99.  I'm finding the right lane to be the safer bet since you can bail from the freeway if there is a problem.  If someone crashes in the left lane you're just fucked.

[Scott5114]

Kernals is an urbanist who doesn't want anyone to drive and that is why he spends all of his time coming up with ways to make American highways worse.

[Scott5114]

What K12 is describing is a Mexican Autopista.

Or an Oklahoma work zone. I despised driving through those, with the concrete walls right up next to the edge lines—my family always called them "cattle chutes".

Caltrans has started to deploying the cattle chutes almost every construction zone on CA 99.  I'm finding the right lane to be the safer bet since you can bail from the freeway if there is a problem.  If someone crashes in the left lane you're just fucked.

In Oklahoma they put the walls on both sides so even if you're in the right lane you're fucked.

Also, if you're getting on the highway, you get about two car lengths to merge, and then the wall is there. Better hope someone will let you in if you start getting up to speed. I've gotten in two accidents due to that horseshit.

[Max Rockatansky]

You're conflating two of my ideas. Superfreeways would probably have wider lanes and shoulders. Regular freeways would retain current speeds but have narrower lanes and no shoulders.

See, between this and the bus, I think riding the bus sounds better. I don't want to fucking deal with that as a driver.

Except the buses will also be using these new highways.

You're conflating two of my ideas. Superfreeways would probably have wider lanes and shoulders. Regular freeways would retain current speeds but have narrower lanes and no shoulders.

See, between this and the bus, I think riding the bus sounds better. I don't want to fucking deal with that as a driver.

What K12 is describing is a Mexican Autopista.  There are definitely safety drawbacks for having narrower lanes and a small exterior shoulder.  It always fun dodging trucks broken down halfway into the travel lanes at 110 KMH. 

But you won't be dodging them, it'll all be automatic

I'm curious, do you even realize that most of the world is 20-30 years behind the U.S. in terms of what vehicles they use?  You might want to dig up my assessment I recently posted on the family vehicle fleet last week in Jalisco.  The only "automatic" anything was two of three vehicle transmissions.

[Max Rockatansky]

What K12 is describing is a Mexican Autopista.

Or an Oklahoma work zone. I despised driving through those, with the concrete walls right up next to the edge lines—my family always called them "cattle chutes".

Caltrans has started to deploying the cattle chutes almost every construction zone on CA 99.  I'm finding the right lane to be the safer bet since you can bail from the freeway if there is a problem.  If someone crashes in the left lane you're just fucked.

In Oklahoma they put the walls on both sides so even if you're in the right lane you're fucked.

Also, if you're getting on the highway, you get about two car lengths to merge, and then the wall is there. Better hope someone will let you in if you start getting up to speed. I've gotten in two accidents due to that horseshit.

Ain't No Love in Oklahoma...

[Scott5114]

Here's some Oklahoma DOT cattle chute action if you want to know what Kernals's future looks like for you and your family.

[kphoger]

What K12 is describing for a regular freeway is a Mexican Autopista.  There are definitely safety drawbacks for having narrower lanes and a small exterior shoulder.  It always fun dodging trucks broken down halfway into the travel lanes at 110 KMH. 

I was thinking of European motorways.

But yes...  Mexico...  You're lucky if the trucks you encountered were only halfway into the travel lanes.  I've encountered broken-down trucks that were simply sitting there in the right lane.  Also construction workers working in the right lane with zero advance warning signage.  It's also very, very, very common for overloaded trucks to be doing about 15 mph up a steep grade—and every so often one of them gets out into the left lane to pass the others at about 18 mph.  But the most fun situations are when there's no shoulder, a two-foot drop-off immediately next to the white line, a cross-wind, and a turnpike double passing you with its second trailer wiggling all around in the wind.

[Scott5114]

What K12 is describing for a regular freeway is a Mexican Autopista.  There are definitely safety drawbacks for having narrower lanes and a small exterior shoulder.  It always fun dodging trucks broken down halfway into the travel lanes at 110 KMH. 

I was thinking of European motorways.

But yes...  Mexico...  You're lucky if the trucks you encountered were only halfway into the travel lanes.  I've encountered broken-down trucks that were simply sitting there in the right lane.  Also construction workers working in the right lane with zero advance warning signage.  It's also very, very, very common for overloaded trucks to be doing about 15 mph up a steep grade—and every so often one of them gets out into the left lane to pass the others at about 18 mph.  But the most fun situations are when there's no shoulder, a two-foot drop-off immediately next to the white line, a cross-wind, and a turnpike double passing you with its second trailer wiggling all around in the wind.

I am surprised that doesn't cause enough accidents that someone demands someone do something about it.

[kernals12]

Here's some Oklahoma DOT cattle chute action if you want to know what Kernals's future looks like for you and your family.

So... basically the Ted Williams tunnel then?