State of California is broke

[doctorquant]

A driverless car would, potentially, substantially reduce the variability in starts, stops, etc. Basically it makes it possible to dramatically streamline and smooth the flow of cars onto, over and off the roads and reduces traffic jams -- not the volume itself, but the craziness that (currently) accompanies such volume.

 

[Armchair_QB]

A driverless car would, potentially, substantially reduce the variability in starts, stops, etc. Basically it makes it possible to dramatically streamline and smooth the flow of cars onto, over and off the roads and reduces traffic jams -- not the volume itself, but the craziness that (currently) accompanies such volume.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not bullet trains are a viable mode of transportation.

And California is still broke either way.

 

[doctorquant]

A driverless car would, potentially, substantially reduce the variability in starts, stops, etc. Basically it makes it possible to dramatically streamline and smooth the flow of cars onto, over and off the roads and reduces traffic jams -- not the volume itself, but the craziness that (currently) accompanies such volume.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not bullet trains are a viable mode of transportation.

And California is still broke either way.

Oh, I was just responding to you question regarding how a driverless car could help more cars get on the road with less gridlock. I ain't touchin' the "California's broke and it should (or shouldn't) do whatever" bit ...

 

[YankeeFan]

And, no rubber necking!

Potentially, less accidents as well.

 

[dixiehack]

Where I would expect to see it applied first is in trucking. You have dedicated lanes for inter-city driverless traffic, with humans taking the wheel at the endpoints to navigate city streets and roads that aren't engineered for the technology yet.

 

[Stitch]

A driverless car would, potentially, substantially reduce the variability in starts, stops, etc. Basically it makes it possible to dramatically streamline and smooth the flow of cars onto, over and off the roads and reduces traffic jams -- not the volume itself, but the craziness that (currently) accompanies such volume.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not bullet trains are a viable mode of transportation.

And California is still broke either way.

Piece of work right there wondering why someone is talking about driverless cars when you are posting a question about driverless cars. Bravo.

 

[doctorquant]

It's very unsettling sometimes to think of the degree to which computerization has insinuated itself into so many areas. A friend of mine is an airline pilot (at one of the biggies) and he was telling me the other day that, really, the pilots are only there in case the computer goes on the fritz. He says that it's largely impossible for a human to guide the aircraft through the takeoff or landing as precisely as current expectations -- aimed at getting more aircraft into the air safely AND using as little fuel as possible -- but that the computer handles it like a champ.

 

[The Big Ragu]

EVERY car maker is busy developing driverless car technology right now.

Why would we want a state or the Federal government to give our money (or more accurately, add billions of dollars of debt to a debt load that is already too great) to try to encourage something that doesn't need to be encouraged?

Plus, why is everyone so eager to have corrupt politicians deciding what technologies to boost (at the expense of more productive uses of that capital if it is left in a market economy that is driven by actual demand). Demand does a better job of developing useful products than politicians who are in the business of handing out favors for their power.

 

[rmanfredi]

No new terminals are being built anytime soon. None.

In fact, thanks to expected lawsuits from Central Valley farmers, nothing's going to happen anytime soon, period.

With the possible exception of the Metrolink tracks in OC, LA, and SF being converted to electricity.

That said, I'm also against the bullet train.

BTW, did anyone notice the story over the weekend about the French TGV authority volunteering to consult on the project, only to be told to take a hike? An expert was quoted as saying, "It's like California has decided they want a 747, but instead of buying it from Boeing, they are going to built it themselves."

I read this - it was in the LA Times last week - and even as someone who supports high-speed rail in theory it made my head hurt. The idea floated by the French was to have the main, high-speed line run along with I-5 - where there is already giant swatches of flat, open land. Central Valley residents could connect via regional lines built in places like Fresno, Bakersfield, Merced, etc. Instead, the influence of the eastern Central Valley politicians ensured that the line would be slower, take longer to build and cost more money but heading up the 99.

At one point, the first stretch of line that was going to be built was from Fresno to Hanford. As someone whose dad made roughly that commute for 30 years, I can tell you that the only people that would help are people heading to Kings Speedway.

 

[dog eat dog world]

All of this financial fiasco and some on the left will find a way to blame Reagan, even though he was governor 50 years and 956,000 budget acts ago.

 

[poindexter]

Calpers earned 1% last year. They laughably have a 7.5% projected return.

http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/07/16/2910981/largest-public-pension-fund-earns.html

Guess who picks up the tab on the shortfall... if you guessed 'firefighters' you would be wrong.

 

[YankeeFan]

They should hire Ragu to manage their funds. He would have had them loaded up on Gold.

Seriously though, 1% is pitiful for a fund like that. Who's managing their money?