I'd like to see better traffic engineering around here. With the correct sequencing of traffic lights in stops can be minimized, reducing fuel consumption. At least in one community they've started putting in traffic circles rather than stop signs where the traffic levels allow it.

My home city is discussing installing an 1870s era non "mass transit" system based on trolley cars. The old name is in disrepute; so they have coined a new term called 'light rail'.

But it's that same old thing that the vestigial remains were ripped out by the city in the 1940s, long after it finally died. It will fail again as it did before, for the exact same reasons.

But this report details another small step in developing the technological basis for the 21st century's genuine Mast Transit system.

The 'virtual train' composed of privately owned intelligent autos driving under autonomous computer control on public roadways will constitute that mass transit system. The 21st century mass transit systems will take you from where you are, to where you want to go, unlike the 1870s era transit systems.

Most people would elect a mass transit system like the truly wealthy presently have elected for themselves. A Chauffeured limousine like mass transit system.

With proliferation of computer power, communications, drive by wire, and GPS, everyone will have an affordable computer chauffeur. The auto of tomorrow will drive you where you wish to go, drop you off, and return, on summons, to take you home, or wherever. It will even let you drive should you want to do so. And it will allow you to drive yourself for areas not subject to autonomous driving, making an easy transition to full computer autonomy,as those areas shrink.

The number of autos may even decline, in the future. When a family can use a single vehicle to ferry one to work, return home to ferry another about, and then return by itself to pick you up with all the flexibility of a chauffeured limo, for unexpected trips, you may not need a unique vehicle for each adult member of the family.

All without being crowded into smelly trolley or subway cars, subject to the whims of any mugger or crazy person running amok; or the exigencies of fixed schedules and inflexible routes that really don't take you where you wish to go. These old primitive inefficient systems, only take you somewhere near your destination with lots of delay. They cost a lot and get terrible mileage, getting around 2 miles per gallon and moving about, even if not a single passenger is aboard.

Progress is being made...

Great point, Stan.
If most driving commuters would use professional carpool service with door-to-door pickup and delivery, the daily traffic jam and pollution issues would be solved. With today's technology, this can easily be solved. Car pooling in a van of 12 or more passengers, a human driver would still be cost effective, and safer than robotic driver. A person may schedule for car pooling for several different alternative times in case he/she has to stay late at work or late to work.

A computer mtching service would match both time and location, and further, racio-economic groups, in order to encourge more widespread use of the carpool service. The lack of public transportation in the USA may also have to do with widely diverse racial and economic class disparity, forcing people to seek segregation by using personal cars. Rosa Park may have been very guilty of inciting global warming than she will ever know.

In Europe or Asia, the population there is more homogeneous.

Sounds like way too many cooks in the kitchen. What is needed is a set of open source IPv6-based communications protocols between road and vehicle and among vehicles. IRCs have proven to be by far the best method to ensure individual standards are relatively simple in scope, well-defined, implementable and universally adopted.

The focus should be narrowly on making the communications protocols complete and robust. All other aspects of implementation should be left up to the individual manufacturers and service providers. The responsibility for safety remains with the individual drivers, the system only provides additional information to facilitate that. Drivers are at liberty to opt out of participation at any time.

The functionality should comprise:

(a) differential GPS/Galileo/Glonast position determination, accuracy 30cm at 100kph in open terrain. Dead reckoning should be used to supplement this as appropriate.

(b) medium-range broadcast messages from traffic management communicating identified hazards (congestion, accident, fog bank, rain, snow, black ice etc.) and associated speed limits using precise geographic coordinates. Also, information regarding available spaces in parking garages may be provided.

(c) short-range timestamped broadcast messages from traffic management communicating the status of a traffic lights and when it will change.

(d) a cryptographic hash that allows vehicles to generate a session ID for themselves using their VIN and a timestamp. If the same hash is ever received from another source, a new one must be generated.

(e) short-range timestamped broadcast messages from vehicles signaling session ID, vehicle extents from the vehicle's transmitter location (forward, backward, left, right). These are sent infrequently as the information is static.

(f) short-range timestamped broadcast messages from vehicles signaling session ID, position, speed and compass heading. These are sent once a second and last 1ms. Each vehicle must pick its broadcast time after listening to those from others and identifying a free slot. If a collision is detected, a new slot must be identified.

Legacy vehicles, bicycles etc. may be equipped with a minimal device that transmits compass heading but not position or speed.

(g) short-range timestamped broadcast messages from vehicles signaling session ID and an identified hazard related to the vehicle or its current position. This may include a vehicle traveling well above the speed limit, apparently out of control or, with apparently transmitting faulty position/speed/heading date.

(h) an algorithm that builds and maintains a dynamic map of vehicles in the immediate vicinity. The map may not be complete as there may be other vehicles or pedestrians that are not equipped with any compatible system. If they participate but only minimally (see f), all vehicles equipped with the full system must consider them moving hazards and use their own position, speed and heading to eventually estimate their positions and speeds and heading by dead reckoning.

Hazard messages (see g) should be sent to allow a group of co-operating vehicles to improve the accuracy of this process.

Minimally participating vehicles need not receive or process any information sent by traffic management or other vehicles.

(j) short-range timestamped broadcast messages from vehicles relaying hazard information provided by vehicles ahead to those behind.

(c) short-range timestamped broadcast messages from traffic management communicating the status of a traffic lights and when it will change.

Wouldn't it be better for the light to change at the best time on the basis of simple and robust vehicle position/velocity sensors in the vicinity of the intersection? That way there would not be a problem with legacy vehicles.

Frankly, I have a hard time seeing the benefit of each car knowing what some or even most, but not all cars around it are doing. I'm sure that some collision avoidance may be possible, and formation of commuting "trains" might be possible, but on surface streets, if the traffic lights aren't intelligent, then nothing's going to work very well.

A computer mtching service would match both time and location, and further, racio-economic groups, in order to encourge more widespread use of the carpool service. The lack of public transportation in the USA may also have to do with widely diverse racial and economic class disparity, forcing people to seek segregation by using personal cars. Rosa Park may have been very guilty of inciting global warming than she will ever know.

Roger, you've really gone off the rails this time, bro.

Roger another dea is to get ya liile white racist ass on a boat back to europe or germany in ththities, they need more like you. Book aseat for stan too, I'll shout.

Roger another idea is to get your white racist ass on a bout to Europe or Germany in the thirties, as they need people like you.
book aseat for Stan while you are at it as neither of you have anything sensible to offer the readers of this site IMOPE.
Apologies for he previous spelling mistakes as I inadvertantly hit the wrong button.

@Rafael,

Discussing a semi-autonomous mass transit system that is based more closely on what the wealthiest people have chosen to use for their transit, is only to say that many would like to have a similar convenience.

There are not enough human chauffeurs to do so, nor could they be afforded, but the cheap computer chip will allow everyone to have such a service. Each owner's own vehicle can be as simple as a Golf, or as fancy as MB S-class. To each his own.

Certainly, there will evolve a large set of communications protocols for this application, but I would think that the TCPIP RFC mechanism will only be used for an initial implementation. The need for fool-proof protocols will probably require a more OSI type DIS, IS, standards type development.

I think you have a good idea of what will be needed but I would also emphasize that the vehicle will operate via advanced intelligent cruse control, GPSS and on Board computer control, as well a a broadcast type virtual cell structure of confederated operation by nearby vehicles. Singularly and together, they will do most of the actual functions of "driving".

I believe it will certainly start on the so-called "HOV" lanes of Freeways. You will manually drive form your home, enter the freeway and enter the computerized HOVs lane and then join become member of the enter the "virtual train".

Freeway packing is not efficient now, as solipsistic waves of traffic clot the roadway. Under autonomous computer control, the packing factor can be much higher.

Many a mile of unneeded freeway lanes need not be built. While the car is driving itself you will be able to do what the chauffeured privileged few do now, read, rest, work or speak via phone or video with others.

As you near the exit your computerized car will alert you for transfer back to manual human control. Gradually the areas available to autonomous computer control driving will grow, thereby allowing an easy infrastructure "build" of the service. Over a few decades, the need to manually drive will decline to almost nothing.

Many lives and much unneeded concrete freeway will be saved. And of course so will much fuel, not that we will care all that much by then as electrons will be cheap and easily available.

No longer will we have human operators driving empty busses, trolleys or subways devoid of passengers, and merely wasting energy on the off chance that someone will board somewhere on the route.

Arnold,
Please hold the judgement that you've made about "Europe or Germany". This is totally unfair, if you claim yourself to be a fair-minded person. It is an unconcious human tendency for people of all races to seek segregation to a subgroup that they feel more comfortable with. Even churches and neighborhoods in America are pretty much voluntarily segregated, even though Christ preached tolerance and acceptance of everyone. Ancient societies or civilizations have castes or social economic classes who do not associate much with other classes. Policy makers need to understand human nature very well in order to make appropriate policy decisions that will be practical in the real world.

I'm glad real work is moving along with auto-AI. With this type of information systems and the DARPA Urban Challenge, AI-driven cars that are more efficient in use of resources (roadspace/energy/time) will eventually dominate what was once the gridlock. Think of it as distributed mass transit.

If you read Europe or Germany in the thirties as being judgemental, I'll just remind you that history states that racial hatred was drummed up by certain thoughtless groups leading to the Nazi rise and the second world war.
The hollocast and the populous who werent actively involved suspended beleif, even those on he way to the gas chambers had no beleif system that could cope with the reality.
Which part do you suggest I hold back on?
The Rosa Park freedom rides etc far from
Quote: "may have been very guilty of inciting global
warming than she will ever know"
Are you trying to suggest that (as this site is greenhouse issue inclined lets stay on topic) we should be duplicating the transport system so that if the autobus goes past my door with a black person on that I wait for another bus with a person of my same colour or religion, or choice of music or that wont work cause im not the same socio economic class?
Wouldnt I just be simpler to ask them all off so I could go shopping in peace!
Far from being guilty of inciting anything Rosa Parks bought closer the end of slavery in the USA.
In Europe and India, populations are not more homogenous than elsewhere. The only homogenous is in your mind where All Indians are the same, all Europeans talk funny? No.
The caste system unoficially rules in India and inter religious hatred and power struggles are the main cause of violence followed by racial issues wich are fuelled by just such attitude as you suggest need to be pandered to.
Your comments make no sense on any level.
Other than to show some sectors of the community will thoughtlessly pursue what may well have been a cheeky jab and then to use the local (christian )religious analogy.
Note the same attitude towards persons of the further Green persuation.
I dont start these diatribes, but dont tolerate them either.

I thought Roger made an interesting point-- that cars have succeeded partly because they offer self-segregation. We don't have to condone segregation or the tendency toward self-segregation, but we should take it into account as we design a transit system (and I actually didn't read Rogers comment as condoning segregation, because he's often flip). For example, if "light rail" sounds better to upscale people, and the trains have high-style design with the same functionality, all classes might want to use them. I used to ride BART in San Francisco every day, and it was a pretty diverse crowd, which I considered nice. It was also fast. When I switched to Muni buses, the socio-economic bracket dropped quite a bit, and I felt uncomfortable. It wasn't racism on my part--I feel comfortable with a certain reasonable percentage of people similar to me around, according to my own definition of similar, which cuts across racial lines, but exists nonetheless. I don't want to be the only one like me on the bus.

Ask anyone why they don't take public transportation and it's usually a combination of slowness, lack of flexibility, and not controlling your personal space--a polite way to say a fear of mixing with others.

The flip side is this--when the fear of mixing is overcome, and the system succeeds, like BART does, in mixing people, it actually ends up feeling better than if you are isolated in your car. Society feels like it's working, like we're all in this together, every one of us. It's good for society, too--we're not so suspicious of each other. This is the aspect of the automated car systems Stan and Rafael describe that I don't like. They keep us all in our little car bubbles, without any attempt at overcoming the fear of mixing Roger described.

There's an implication here that our "fear of mixing" is racist. I don't want to sit next to a white wino, panhandler, or person who needs a shower any more than I want to sit next to one of any other color. The same goes for cell phone yakkers, boom box players, or other annoyances. I could probably put up with whatever people were there if public transport were even remotely as convenient as a car, but it isn't even close.

Thanks to Jeff R. and George for putting the issue in perspective with your thoughtful comments.

Thanks to Arnold for your fervent reply in this emotionally-charged dialogue. Indeed, I strongly agree with you that forced or instutional segregation policy is impractical and counterproductive. People should be more tolerant, cooperative and understanding, and should embrace diversity more.

However, the instinctive emotion or desire for personal comfort and the lack thereof, when being in company with certain members of society, should be respected in order for social peace to flourish. Older forms of public transit lack this feature, and are therefore obsolete. We now can computer-match individual preferences with certain company for carpooling for daily commute, and hopefully, get much higher level of participation than before.

Peace, and may the spirit of Christ be with all of us in this coming holiday season.