Connected/Automated vehicles and infrastructure in Boston

[jklo]

I don't see autonomous vehicles having a huge impact on the mode share of urban areas. AVs will suffer from the same geometric inefficiencies that regular cars do.

Well, presumably the SDW would be available to scale down (or up) to the number of passengers involved. The vehicles wouldn't be the typical 4 door sedan that people drive alone in today.

And in a fully connected state, distance between vehicles could be minimized while still maintaining decent speed and things like traffic lights could be minimized or eliminated entirely.

A lot of this is just theoretical though and yes the legal issues will be a problem.

 

[whittle]

And in a fully connected state, distance between vehicles could be minimized while still maintaining decent speed and things like traffic lights could be minimized or eliminated entirely.

I'm curious to know how likely people think interconnected AVs are? I would think the cybersecurity issues would make it far too risky.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I'm curious to know how likely people think interconnected AVs are? I would think the cybersecurity issues would make it far too risky.

Given all the Internet of Things interconnected devices coming, I think we simply (well not simply, really, but critically) have to solve the cybersecurity issues. There is no option -- critical systems are getting interconnected (and they need to be to optimize performance).

 

[Arlington]

I think we should also assume that among the C/AVs coming to Boston will be passenger drones, either Larry Page's Kitty Hawk (operating to/from/over water landings) or the Ehang 184 Autonomous Aerial Vehicle to be tested in Dubai

Any place water taxis go would be a good place for the Kitty Hawk (plus MIT/BU/Harvard). Not practical for work trips, but expect "Sunday Drivers" to be doing leisure trips / tourist flights.

Electrification makes lightweight motors possible, and being self-driving saves the cost & weight of controls and a pilot. Battery energy density & recharge is the main limiter at this point.

Being Aerial also solves most of the "not connected" and "modal mix" problems that we have at street level.

 

[Balerion]

Well, presumably the SDW would be available to scale down (or up) to the number of passengers involved. The vehicles wouldn't be the typical 4 door sedan that people drive alone in today.

Once you start building up passenger numbers, you're going to have a group of people with different origins and destinations. You could try an UberPool type system, but we know that UberPool involves a lot of deadhead miles today. Or you start using large vehicles and a fixed route....so, we'd be back at buses again.

And in a fully connected state, distance between vehicles could be minimized while still maintaining decent speed and things like traffic lights could be minimized or eliminated entirely.

I've seen this argument before, but I'm skeptical. It assumes that pedestrians and cyclists basically don't exist and even if we continue with that false assumption, how much more capacity can we squeeze from the width of our roadways? At what point would curb space become a serious bottleneck?

One thing is for sure, though - interesting times ahead with all of this stuff.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I've seen this argument before, but I'm skeptical. It assumes that pedestrians and cyclists basically don't exist and even if we continue with that false assumption, how much more capacity can we squeeze from the width of our roadways?

The only serious discussions of the tighter packing concept I have heard involve expressways, where you don't have to worry about the pedestrians and cyclists. And even there usually only in the context of one or two high speed lanes, away from the exiting/entering vehicles.

 

[whittle]

Given all the Internet of Things interconnected devices coming, I think we simply (well not simply, really, but critically) have to solve the cybersecurity issues. There is no option -- critical systems are getting interconnected (and they need to be to optimize performance).

But is making something unhackable truly be feasible?

 

[JeffDowntown]

But is making something unhackable truly be feasible?

Unhackable is certainly impossible. Even low probability events will happen at some point.

But, the Internet of Things could be way more secure and robust than it is now, it just costs time and money. People have been opting for fast and cheap rather than reliable (to paraphrase the old design tradeoff).

 

[whittle]

Unhackable is certainly impossible. Even low probability events will happen at some point.

But, the Internet of Things could be way more secure and robust than it is now, it just costs time and money. People have been opting for fast and cheap rather than reliable (to paraphrase the old design tradeoff).

If it's not unhackable, then there will won't be much benefit. People won't put up with a system where a single hack could result in a multi-car pile-up. Maybe you could get some small improvements like simultaneous acceleration from stops (since the worst case scenario would be a series of fender-benders), but things like eliminating traffic lights would be a disaster waiting to happen.

 

[JumboBuc]

If it's not unhackable, then there will won't be much benefit. People won't put up with a system where a single hack could result in a multi-car pile-up. Maybe you could get some small improvements like simultaneous acceleration from stops (since the worst case scenario would be a series of fender-benders), but things like eliminating traffic lights would be a disaster waiting to happen.

There's a ton of middle ground between no inter-connectivity at all and eliminating traffic lights.

As far as "People won't put up with a system where a single hack could result in a multi-car pile-up", traffic lights in their current form are hackable, and a single hack could result in a multi-car pile-up, but we still tolerate that.

 

[fattony]

There's a ton of middle ground between no inter-connectivity at all and eliminating traffic lights.

As far as "People won't put up with a system where a single hack could result in a multi-car pile-up", traffic lights in their current form are hackable, and a single hack could result in a multi-car pile-up, but we still tolerate that.

+1

 

[393b40]

If it's not unhackable, then there will won't be much benefit.

Software engineer here: There is no such thing as unhackable and yet we still get a lot of benefit from massively automated technology everyday.

The solution to your problems lies in technology as well: Connected Traffic might be the primary system while cameras would be the fallback safety mechanism.

 

[393b40]

Also I used to work in the Internet of Things space (previously known as Machine 2 Machine... hooray marketing).

Most of it is a steaming pile of garbage. Trust none of it right now.

 

[bakgwailo]

Also I used to work in the Internet of Things space (previously known as Machine 2 Machine... hooray marketing).

Most of it is a steaming pile of garbage. Trust none of it right now.

Also software engineer: that is correct. Last year there was a huge DDos that wrecked the internet across the east coast (and country) by basically a ton of internet of things household items being hacked and taken over.

Even cars in their current forms can be hacked (easily). The general rule of security is: Is your device connected or networked in any way shape or form ? If yes, it can be hacked. If not, chances are it still can be hacked (even across air gaps). Moral: Anything can be hacked (and probably has been).

 

[whittle]

The solution to your problems lies in technology as well: Connected Traffic might be the primary system while cameras would be the fallback safety mechanism.

But isn't the whole point of connected cars to let cars make maneuvers that would be dangerous if it was reacting only based on sight?

 

[393b40]

But isn't the whole point of connected cars to let cars make maneuvers that would be dangerous if it was reacting only based on sight?

Yes, but that would be the primary mechanism. Camera would be the backup. A good chunk of all engineering is about redundancy... especially when you're dealing with people's lives.

 

[JeffDowntown]

If it's not unhackable, then there will won't be much benefit. People won't put up with a system where a single hack could result in a multi-car pile-up. Maybe you could get some small improvements like simultaneous acceleration from stops (since the worst case scenario would be a series of fender-benders), but things like eliminating traffic lights would be a disaster waiting to happen.

Sorry, but we put up with all kinds of systems that, while highly reliable, do in fact fail on rare occasions.

Civil aviation, for example, is very reliable (typically specified as seven 9's reliability, one failure in 10,000,000 events). But that is not perfect (nothing in the real world is!).

The question is never unhackable. It is what level of security (reliability) is acceptable to create reasonable public safety.

I mean we allow humans to drive cars, for pete's sake! One mis-timed text and you have a huge pileup. How safe is that?

 

[Arlington]

Here is another potential problem: drone advertising trucks.

We currently see trucks whose only purpose is to be a two-sided street-legal billboard--basically like a blimp or a ad-flying plane at the beach, but the cost of operation limits them to busy days like college move-in, move out, and major league game times.

But making them self driving (and if we have not imposed a street congestion charge) and their economics get much more favorable--like bus advertising but fully targeted.

Eg:

Or Google "mobile billboard truck Boston"

 

[whittle]

Yes, but that would be the primary mechanism. Camera would be the backup. A good chunk of all engineering is about redundancy... especially when you're dealing with people's lives.

But if you're going to limit connected cars to maneuvers that would still be safe with cameras, what do you gain?

 

[bakgwailo]

But if you're going to limit connected cars to maneuvers that would still be safe with cameras, what do you gain?

The internet/networked connection/aspect shouldn't be used for any real time driving at all, that should be all on board sensors and cameras. The connectivity piece should be overall route routing/GPS work that is able to analyze traffic and traffic patterns and optimally route it as a whole. The actually automated driving should be on a separate completely non-networked ( or at least not open to the WAN/net like the GPS/routing/entertainment/etc) and reasonably self-contained system.