Streetcar

[RedDollar]

Sorry man, what happened in 1956 is irrelevant to today. And while you wanna bet hundreds of millions against the technology, there's billions and billions being invested on the other side of your bet.

That wasn't happening in 1956.

[RedDollar]

a video full of concepts and CGI.... i didn't see a single real production vehicle in that entire video.

The CNBC vid was done inside the vehicle.

[jerrywall]

I don't see UBER in competition with the street car. Autonomous cars are also not in competition with the street cars. They compete with taxis for sure. Folks who would choose an UBER over taking a bus, wouldn't have likely taken a bus before UBER. They would have called a taxi. I use both UBER and the street car, as well as the bus system (especially in Edmond). Regular schedules, and the ability to hop off and on as I get around town can't be replicated with any of the current models. Sure, we can get autonomous mass transit, but for something like the downtown street cars, that doesn't make as much sense until the technology gets there.

[jedicurt]

Sorry man, what happened in 1956 is irrelevant to today. And while you wanna bet hundreds of millions against the technology, there's billions and billions being invested on the other side of your bet.

That wasn't happening in 1956.

i'm not against driver-less cars... and i think the billions spent trying to get to that point has provided many many positive benefits to all forms of transportation with computer assisted driving, and automating some tasks... if you are passionate about computer automation like i am, i really to recommend listening to the intelligence squared debate.

I do see the technology improving constantly, but there are still several things that haven't yet been addressed that are the things that will ultimately keep them from becoming mainstream until they are solved... again, a lot of good information on both sides of the debate in that podcast.

[RedDollar]

i'm not against driver-less cars... and i think the billions spent trying to get to that point has provided many many positive benefits to all forms of transportation with computer assisted driving, and automating some tasks... if you are passionate about computer automation like i am, i really to recommend listening to the intelligence squared debate.

I do see the technology improving constantly, but there are still several things that haven't yet been addressed that are the things that will ultimately keep them from becoming mainstream until they are solved... again, a lot of good information on both sides of the debate in that podcast.

Ten years ago that debate did not exist.

And you , nor I , can envision what will exist 10 years from now.

I would not invest a penny in any traditional form of public transportation, too many disruptive technologies.

[jedicurt]

Ten years ago that debate did not exist.

And you , nor I , can envision what will exist 10 years from now.

I would not invest a penny in any traditional form of transportation, too many disruptive technologies.

again... you might want to go listen to that debate podcast... they talk about a good 30 years worth of the debate... it has existed far longer than 10 years. and they are people in the industry and have been working on it for that long... i understand that the debate didn't exist in the open public... but the debate has been going on for decades...

[hoya]

Yes, there's still many problems, but no one in 2008 even thought of an Uber or an autonomous vehicle

No one had thought of a taxicab in 2008?

The creativity of Uber was not technology, it was in terminology. They call it a "ride sharing service" as though the drivers are just commuters who happened to be on their way to a location, and you could use this app to carpool with them. "Oh hey buddy, since you're going that way..." It's designed to get around laws for taxis.

[Jersey Boss]

Automonous cars with one or 2 people in them do nothing to alleviate congestion or to make the inner city safer and more appealing for peds., scooters,
or bicylces( e or pedal). Not to mention infrastruture costs.

[jedicurt]

No one had thought of a taxicab in 2008?

The creativity of Uber was not technology, it was in terminology. They call it a "ride sharing service" as though the drivers are just commuters who happened to be on their way to a location, and you could use this app to carpool with them. "Oh hey buddy, since you're going that way..." It's designed to get around laws for taxis.

exactly.. and people think that driverless car tech only started then as well... because that is when the auto manufactures started to pump billions instead of millions into it. but the initial work to get to the proof of concept to convince execs to put billions behind it had been going on for 20-25 years before. the debate has been a long one. and they still have not gotten over the liability issue.

[jedicurt]

Automonous cars with one or 2 people in them do nothing to alleviate congestion or to make the inner city safer and more appealing for peds., scooters,
or bicylces( e or pedal). Not to mention infrastruture costs.

in fact, it makes congestion worse. because now you need more individual smaller vehicles to move the same amount of people as one larger vehicle... Go look at the NYC studies that show how Uber and Lyft have actually made NYC traffic significantly worse, not better.

[David]

No one had thought of a taxicab in 2008?

The creativity of Uber was not technology, it was in terminology. They call it a "ride sharing service" as though the drivers are just commuters who happened to be on their way to a location, and you could use this app to carpool with them. "Oh hey buddy, since you're going that way..." It's designed to get around laws for taxis.

The killer feature of it to me is just the convenient mobile interface. I've been wondering for a while if traditional taxi companies couldn't just wrap their own offerings up in a similar interface and do a better job of competing. Hell, maybe someone out there is already working on that.

[jedicurt]

The killer feature of it to me is just the convenient mobile interface. I've been wondering for a while if traditional taxi companies couldn't just wrap their own offerings up in a similar interface and do a better job of competing. Hell, maybe someone out there is already working on that.

biggest thing is that there isn't one unified one that works everywhere... in Europe it's EasyTaxi, NYC is GetT (formerly GetTaxi), Summon (formerly InstaCab) is SF Bay Area.

Flywheel is an app that works more like what you are describing, it has been picked up by several Cab Companies in the US, and also allows for independently licensed taxi drivers as well... (almost all of those above are independently licensed drivers, or those working directly for the company that made the app). currently FlyWheel has 80% of licensed taxi drivers in San Francisco using it. and it is probably the most polished app. just doesn't have the brand recognition yet. (probably in part because i think the name doesn't tell you what it is)

[RaRaRyan]

Ten years ago that debate did not exist.

And you , nor I , can envision what will exist 10 years from now.

I would not invest a penny in any traditional form of public transportation, too many disruptive technologies.

By that logic, we shouldn’t invest in anything because it will eventually be outdated and something better will be invented...Better not buy a new computer, a better one will be released tomorrow!

[BoulderSooner]

in fact, it makes congestion worse. because now you need more individual smaller vehicles to move the same amount of people as one larger vehicle... Go look at the NYC studies that show how Uber and Lyft have actually made NYC traffic significantly worse, not better.

actually once automonous vechicals become wide spread they make the current highway system signifigantly more efficient

[TheTravellers]

i'm not against driver-less cars... and i think the billions spent trying to get to that point has provided many many positive benefits to all forms of transportation with computer assisted driving, and automating some tasks... if you are passionate about computer automation like i am, i really to recommend listening to the intelligence squared debate.

I do see the technology improving constantly, but there are still several things that haven't yet been addressed that are the things that will ultimately keep them from becoming mainstream until they are solved... again, a lot of good information on both sides of the debate in that podcast.

The technology can improve by leaps and bounds, but our nation's infrastructure needs to be pretty perfect in order for autonomous cars to be feasible. If autonomous cars can't detect lane markings, they fail, and taking OKC as an example, our lane markings on most likely a majority (if not most) of roads, state and interstate highways are in pretty sad shape. Until every roadway that will have an autonomous car driving on it has lane markings that are visible to autonomous cars, they simply will not happen, and I see that being quite a ways off.

[GoGators]

Ten years ago that debate did not exist.

And you , nor I , can envision what will exist 10 years from now.

I would not invest a penny in any traditional form of public transportation, too many disruptive technologies.

Does this include road construction and maintenance? I mean why do we have to throw billions away at building and maintaining roads if flying cars aren’t even going to use roads?

[Jersey Boss]

Does this include road construction and maintenance? I mean why do we have to throw billions away at building and maintaining roads if flying cars aren’t even going to use roads?

That really hits home. My dad worked for Ford at an assembly plant from 48 thru 83. After going to the Ford exhibit at the World's Fair in 64 and admiring the Mustang that had been introduced, he assured me flying cars would be a thing whithin 10 years.

[jn1780]

That really hits home. My dad worked for Ford at an assembly plant from 48 thru 83. After going to the Ford exhibit at the World's Fair in 64 and admiring the Mustang that had been introduced, he assured me flying cars would be a thing whithin 10 years.

Flying cars hasn't been invented yet because the real life Tony Stark hasn't been capture and forced to invent the Ark reactor in order to escape. duh...

Seriously, I don't see flying cars anytime soon. Its still a physics problem.

[PaddyShack]

Flying cars hasn't been invented yet because the real life Tony Stark hasn't been capture and forced to invent the Ark reactor in order to escape. duh...

Seriously, I don't see flying cars anytime soon. Its still a physics problem.

I'm still waiting for my Flubber car...

[Ross MacLochness]

Regardless of how autonomous vehicles play out, we still need to be focusing on creating places for pedestrians and public transit over the private auto. How we design our streets shouldn't change too much (at least shouldn't regress backward into auto-exclusive or primary design) with the introduction of avs unless those avs carry a large number of people.

[HOT ROD]

yes, we will still need MASS TRANSIT - high(er) capacity vehicles to move large amounts of people to one place.

For the life of me, the streetcar is the beginning of OKC's Metropolitan Area MASS TRANSIT network, Commuter Rail and Commuter Bus being the other components moving large amounts of people into and throughout downtown. ...

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for people in OKC to understand. This is in addition to other modes of transit such as local bus, uber/lyft, taxi, and autonomous whatever of the future. ...

[Teo9969]

The day that you can reliably ride Uber all you need during a 16 hour period for less than $8.00 will be the day that they are even competitive with public transportation, let alone make it obsolete.

Realistically - ride-share services with autonomous cars are going to do terribly in super dense cities as well as super sprawled out cities because of economics. Public transit in super dense cities will always be fantastically successful because the city gets to dictate whatever it wants to do with ROW and will have a vested interest in protecting transit over-against autonomous vehicle ride-sharing systems. In super sprawled out cities, the necessity to use the car for all transportation will make Uber very cost-ineffective.

[RedDollar]

Lotsa opinion ............but nobody knows where transportation is headed. If you do, then you need to invest all the money you got and get rich, one way or the other

But you people , don't invest your own money, y'all are really good at spending other people's money where there's no personal risk to you. So what if your wrong, its just the taxpayers that get screwed.

Transportation, including public transportation, is in a state of flux, denying that is hiding from reality.

[GoGators]

Lotsa opinion ............but nobody knows where transportation is headed. If you do, then you need to invest all the money you got and get rich, one way or the other

But you people , don't invest your own money, y'all are really good at spending other people's money where there's no personal risk to you. So what if your wrong, its just the taxpayers that get screwed.

Transportation, including public transportation, is in a state of flux, denying that is hiding from reality.

Lol So you’re the only taxpayer on this board? I think the taxpayers will be fine seeing as how we as taxpayers voted to fund it.

[RedDollar]

Lol So you’re the only taxpayer on this board? I think the taxpayers will be fine seeing as how we as taxpayers voted to fund it.

Yeah, OK