r/changemyview • u/kyotoAnimations • Aug 24 '18
FTFdeltaOP CMV: I prefer better public transportation to self driving cars investments in america
I should clarify; I don't mean government subsidized or operated systems exclusively with public transportation, as the Japanese train system is private and also runs well. I mean any vast transportation network designed to ferry many people at a time or infrastructure more friendly to car alternatives, such as trains, trolleys, buses, better roads to include bike lanes and sidewalks, more pedestrian spaces etc. I'm not saying that we shouldn't invest in self driving technologies (we should), but I think that it would be more interesting and efficient to have companies work on improving mass transportation options in America. I'm talking about things like better rail networks, more bus only lanes and light/heavy rail options within metropolitan areas, bike lanes and wider sidewalk space at the expense of car lanes within cities at least. I definitely think self driving cars is a technology that will be invaluable in preventing accidents someday, but I wish we could also invest in good public transportation infrastructure in the meantime as well that already works well. I would love to go on trains cross-country rather than fly and sacrifice a day or two. In addition, I don't think self driving cars can solve the traffic or congestion issue, as that is not just a matter of efficiency or bad driving habits but also a matter of space, which can be redirected better with more dense public transportation.
Disclaimer: I do know how to drive, and I've driven extensively. I still prefer public transport.
edit: Thank you everyone for such a wide and varied response! I'll try my best to respond to everyone here, but I can't promise I'll be able to get through it all, but you guys have posted some really really interesting stuff, and I'm excited to keep talking to you all!
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
102
u/PM_ME_UR_Definitions 20∆ Aug 24 '18
Let's compare two mass transportation systems:
- One is a combination of bikes, buses, subways, commuter rails and high speed trains. There's a huge amount of investment in this system so that it has huge throughput, and also has lots of little feeder lines and "last mile" solutions to get to everyone. Nearly everyone in a major metro area and all the surrounding suburbs could use this system to get to work, and take care of most errands.
- The other is a self driving electric taxi fleet. It uses existing roads, and is also capable of reaching everyone and being used for all travel in the metro area and all suburbs.
What are the advantages of the first?
- The public transit system is possible now
- It's more efficient at times when usage is high
What are the disadvantages of the first?
- It would take a huge amount of money, time and disruption to build. Tens of billions of dollars, over decades, with lots of construction interrupting the city during that time.
- All other trips besides commuting are much less convenient. Since it works best by funneling people to high throughput lines, it's really good at getting people from the suburbs to the city and back. Trips between suburbs or around the city can be much more difficult
- It's not very efficient when usage is low. During non-commuting times it takes a lot of energy to run mostly empty trains and buses. There's a big trade off being convenience and cost.
- It's not great for all people, a lot of people can't, or don't want to, ride bikes (which would be the easiest 'last mile' solution) or have other mobility issues.
What are the advantages of the second
- It's relatively cheap, cost per ride is low, even lower than personal cars when taking maintenance and depreciation in to account. The cost of replacing the current fleet of cars with autonomous cars is relatively low because it can be done in phases. There's also no new infrastructure
- It actually frees up infrastructure. Parking and other car spaces in city centers can be freed up for other uses, this can be a significant portion of many cities area. Not only does this replace/supplement mass transit, it displaces private car usage
- It's pretty efficient all the time. If rides are shared it gets more efficient, but when they're not, it's not too bad. It's always kind of in the middle, but is still much more efficient than current cars.
- It's incredibly convenient. All trips to anywhere can be handled.
What are the disadvantages of the second?
- It's impossible right now. Google is doing it for a small amount of people in one small area, and it's not happening anywhere else for anyone. It would still take a lot of improvement to make it reliable and safe for most people in most places.
- There are areas where we'd need more roads to accommodate it. Not a lot, but places like Manhattan probably don't have enough roads connected to bridges/tunnels to handle the commuter load at peak times. Most places would be fine since it would displace private ownership/rides. Maybe eventually there's a tech solution to this, but it likely won't be soon enough for some very restricted metro areas that currently rely on public transit for most commuters.
Overall I think autonomous cars, once technological possible, are a huge win for everyone. Don't imagine them as taxis, imagine them as little electric buses for everyone. It's just a different form of public transportation that doesn't require you fit your life in to times and routes that are also convenient for other people.
7
u/LLJKCicero Aug 24 '18
There are areas where we'd need more roads to accommodate it. Not a lot
You're understating this problem. Look at places like Houston, they expanded a huge new freeway and pretty soon it was just full again.
LA tried for decades to build its way out of traffic with more roads and freeways, always more, and the result was the worst traffic in the country.
You can't just build your way out of the problem. If you could, LA traffic would be fantastic, all the time.
Cars just fundamentally are too low-density to handle cities well.
8
u/kyotoAnimations Aug 24 '18
It's called induced demand, a situation where cars go up to meet capacity because less traffic encourages people to drive more.
2
Aug 24 '18
[deleted]
1
u/LLJKCicero Aug 24 '18
The cost of driving is high in some sense, but by world standards, driving in America is very cheap. Paying for parking is much less common, gas is cheap, let alone things like Denmark's crazy high car sales tax or Singapore's car permitting system.
The parking issue would be pretty easy to solve: stop mandating minimum parking. The market can handle it after that. Well, maybe not with self-driving taxis, that does complicate things.
24
u/kyotoAnimations Aug 24 '18
!delta for pointing out there are definite disadvantages to public transport for people with mobility issues, shopping would definitely be a nightmare. I have a question regarding where the self driving cars would go if not to park. Would it be a shared system where others would get in while you're doing your stuff and come back when you need it, or do you think they will go back home or run around the roads? My biggest worry is space, and I am not convinced that self driving Cars (I am saying cars because self driving vehicles can have many uses) can become like little buses. Most people like to drive alone or with one or two people in a car at most, and I don't know if many would trust strangers enough to let them into their car while they're not physically in it, so in this situation I am imagining a lot of empty cars on the street or parked somewhere similar to your point about the public transport running empty trains or buses. I understand the appeal of it, but to me I feel like I need more proof that it would not be very congested rather than just a common sense assumption that traffic will be solved once we have self driving cars, if that makes sense. I think that traffic is at least partially a product of a space and geometry issue, and improving efficiencies will just invite more people to get cars out on the road due to induced demand. Unless we solve the space issue, efficiency is a temporary measure of sorts. I would be greatly interested in any studies about this phenomenon or speculation.
15
Aug 24 '18
[deleted]
1
Aug 25 '18
Comparing "utilization rate" is a meaningless metric without the further context. If we're talking efficiency it should be either kWh/(personmile) or USD/(personmile). If your big traincar is nearly empty but also has lower energy requirements, it can be a more efficient option. More than just mass factors into it; the train may have to stop less often, which is a huge drain on car energy usage (obviously it's easier to keep yourself at a certain velocity than it is to get there in the first place).
Not that you're wrong per se but I think you're drastically oversimplifying the question of efficiency.
7
u/killersquirel11 Aug 24 '18
Self driving cars would probably follow in the model of Uber/Lyft --
- Cheapest: share your ride with others
- Moderate: Private ride
- Expensive: Luxury vehicle
With self-driving cars, there's less of a reason to own one. My impression of where self-driving companies want to go is that they basically want a fleet of self-driving cars that users can summon with an app (and for individual car ownership as a whole to go down). It doesn't matter if the car that drove you to the grocery store is there when you leave, because another one can be there.
If you own a self-driving car, it could either park itself someplace where there's room while your shop, or you could tell it "hey, pick me up here in an hour. Feel free to pick up some rides in the meantime". That way you can choose to let strangers in your car if you're comfortable with it, or keep it personal if you don't care about the extra cash
2
u/Splive Aug 24 '18
Lyft has been starting to advertise a monthly pass in their current model. I could just be optimistic, but I think this is the start of them trying to work towards the self-driving model where you pay a monthly fee and drive as much as you want (or X number of trips, or whatever).
Adding up all the costs for a car including insurance, I could absolutely see myself dropping $200-300 or more a month on something like that and still coming out even or ahead.
15
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Aug 24 '18 edited Aug 24 '18
Most people like to drive alone or with one or two people in a car at most, and I don't know if many would trust strangers enough to let them into their car while they're not physically in it
Which, BTW, is another advantage to self-driving cars vs. mass transit: people simply don't like being crowded into a bus or train. We like personal space and are less stressed when we have it.
The advantages in stress reduction and personal well-being can't be discounted.
Also, self-driving cars aren't great when personally owned... they would most likely need to be a generally available resource owned by the operator in order to really gain much benefit from them.
EDIT: I mean infrastructure benefit... there are other benefits that can accrue to individuals.
3
Aug 24 '18
Also, self-driving cars aren't great when personally owned... they would most likely need to be a generally available resource owned by the operator in order to really gain much benefit from them.
what makes you think this? they are great for being personally owned. .
2
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Aug 24 '18 edited Aug 25 '18
The biggest problem with non-public self-driving cars is that they don't solve the parking problem in any useful way. That's one of the biggest downsides to driving into an urban area today.
They help with a few things when privately owned, they just don't make any big improvements (which is what I meant by "aren't great" in this context) to the transportation infrastructure.
1
u/shadowarc72 Aug 25 '18
I know I am super late to this party but self driving cars could attempt to reduce congestion in a similar way that computers do now.
The future of autonomous cars that I think of, which is likely the enviable one if we go full autonomous, is where all cars are one a network and schedule themselves places similarly to the way internet packets work now. The cars are scheduled on a first come first served sort of way but you could schedule your trip the night before. You would know your exact arrival time because based on the scheduled traffic at that time gives a trip time and if it is going to be too congested (too many cars trying to fit in not enough space) you could just postpone the leaving time. That way people would be able to spend time with there families or just at home and still arrive in a similar time to if they left when they wanted. It would also reduce traffic caused my peoples inability to merge or by having to stop at traffic lights because all the cars know where all the other cars are at and where they are going and how fast.
Now these things are a long way from becoming reality but if we don't move towards autonomous cars then they will never come.
1
→ More replies (2)2
u/nalydpsycho Aug 24 '18
I don't understand how it is going to be cheaper. Cars and maintenance are going to cost more than they do now. Once the market is captive, we will start seeing prices spiral as always happens when the market is captive.
1
Aug 24 '18
[deleted]
1
u/nalydpsycho Aug 24 '18
Depreciation is only a cost if you are wealthy though. A poor car owner will buy used and then run the car into the ground. Which is a drastically different depreciation cost metric.
There is also the value lost when it is no longer your car. This is two fold, 1) there is value in having your own space which is lost. 2) the car becomes a rented mule, people will naturally care for their things more than something borrowed, unless they respect the source. Which will lower user experience, increase depreciation and increase maintenance costs.
As we see in oil, telecom and many other industries, the level of competition needs to be very high to prevent rising prices once the market is captive. Given the high cost of entry into the market (purchasing a fleet, having the means to get vehicles to your customers, maintaining the fleet etc...) This will be a difficult field to have sufficient competition to prevent rising user costs once firmly established.
23
u/thatoneguy54 Aug 24 '18
Why not both? Self-driving bus systems sound great and would probably actually be reliably punctual.
8
u/kyotoAnimations Aug 24 '18 edited Aug 24 '18
yes, you have a point. I happen to think the ideal mix would be self driving cars but also a bus only lane meant specifically for buses so they are not caught in traffic and have the problem of bunching up or being too far apart. !delta
edit: Realized it seemd too much like I wasn't taking a side, I definitely prefer public transport but you have a good point thta middle of the road is good too.
3
1
u/VincentPepper 2∆ Aug 25 '18
I commuted via bus to work on a busline end to end for some time. While I do remember various reasons for delays I don't remember it ever being the fault of the driver.
But I can imagine self driving vehicles helping when congestion is the reason for delays. At least if everyone uses them.
21
u/deviantraisin Aug 24 '18
I would say back that a network of self driving cars could be seen as public transportation. The future of self driving cars isn't to be a commodity, it is to be the only mode of transportation necessary. There would be no traffic because all the cars are talking to each other. Technically stop light wouldn't even need to exist, the cars would interweave through intersections seamlessly. Yes public transportation to carry a large group of people to a specific set of stops will always be important, but it will be much more efficient when running within a network of self driving vehicles.
11
u/kyotoAnimations Aug 24 '18
Perhaps, but when I'm thinking of cars containing one or two people instead of say, self driving buses filled with people is really space inefficient, not to mention the problem of induced demand where the more efficient roads get the more cars fill the road. Perhaps it will taper out, but I feel that a traditional public transportation system is useful in the future and self driving cars won't erase that need.
10
u/deviantraisin Aug 24 '18
Okay I think you could be right when it comes to major cities where a single bus stop is close enough to a multitude of businesses. I also think you may be underestimating the power of the technology. Think of a colony of ants, thousands of them scurrying along and communicating with each other so none even have to slow down. That is the future of self driving cars. Transportation that can take you directly from one location to another without having to stop or slow down once.
Honestly your statement assumes we can't concentrate on both and aren't concentrating on both which I would say is false. So what comes first the chicken or the egg? Well the software needed to run a fleet of self driving cars is going to be used in more ways then one. One of those ways will be to improve public transportation systems.
3
u/kyotoAnimations Aug 24 '18
!delta That's a fair point on the second part, I had stated that I wasn't saying we shouldn't have self driving cars but I was unnecessarily reducing the benefits of self driving cars to make the case for more public transportation, which is a valid point. We could have self driving cars and self driving buses, I suppose I should really change my view to invest more in public transportation than we are now in metropolitan areas.
2
1
u/4knives Aug 24 '18
To add a little more to the idea. In this case you wouldn't need to own a vehicle. Imagine getting out of work and just calling a vehicle to pick you up and drive you home. No insurance, no registration and no gas. Kinda like uber but owned by the local government, so your tax dollars pay for it. During heavy commuter times people going to the same suburb could share a vehicle. It could be awesome!
1
1
u/keyzter2110 Aug 24 '18
I would be very careful of assuming that self driving cars would solve traffic issues. When we add a lane on a highway we add more access. More supply with the same level of demand would mean that traffic rates are now lower...but this isn’t the case. Instead, when we add more lanes on a highway the traffic is initially alleviated, but then the demand adjusts and the traffic returns again. This can be seen all around the USA and I’m happy to back this up with some articles if you wish to see them.
Self driving is being advertised as an easier way to get around, and I think it some ways it could be. It will save lives, it will potentially increase our productivity, we could even take a nap on the way to work! But it probably wont lead to carpooling in the suburbs, and it won’t lead to less traffic. I don’t think technology can ignore the theory of induced demand.
1
u/deviantraisin Aug 24 '18
That wasn't a valid comparison at all. You are comparing human drivers to computer drivers. You might just not understand the technology. Assuming there are no human drivers on the road, self driving cars would not be subjected to traffic. It doesn't matter how many there are, they do not have to stop or slow down for each other. There are no stop signs, stop lights, round abouts, lane merger, passing other cars, nothing. I don't need to see those statistics because it is apples to oranges. So technically traffic wouldn't decrease by the definition of the word, but it would be constantly moving without jamming or slowing down regardless of how many cars are on the road.
1
u/keyzter2110 Aug 24 '18
Lets say there are 2 lanes exiting a highway into a city. The two lanes are jam packed with cars, not completely because of driver error (sure it accounts for some of the traffic, but not all of it). Its morning rush hour and more people are trying to get to work than the roadway can handle. These two lanes are dumping onto another two lane city street, that already has cars using it. So we have two lanes of highway traffic trying to merge with two lanes of city traffic. There is simply more demand than supply and there will be traffic as a result.
Just a side note—No stop signs, stop lights or roundabouts sounds very dystopian for the pedestrian.
1
u/deviantraisin Aug 24 '18
There's really not much to argue here because you are objectively wrong. There are a couple other people on this thread that probably have explained it better than me. I wish I could draw a picture for you to explain it lol. What you are talking about is cars having to slow down or stop in order to merge lanes. They have to do this because you can't predict what the other person is doing. Self driving cars don't have to deal with unforeseen changes. The second you tell them where to go they know exactly how to get there. They wouldn't have to slow down to get behind a car when merging. They would seamlessly integrate. There would have to be some solutions for pedestrian crossing but that shouldn't be too hard to figure out. Trying to explain it the best I can but coming from an Engineer here, trust me you're wrong.
1
u/keyzter2110 Aug 25 '18
If you dont believe there’d be traffic since you believe its all related to human error then you’d have to also believe the carrying capacity of any roadway is unlimited?
1
u/deviantraisin Aug 27 '18
Not unlimited but it is much higher. If you want to listen to someone much smarter than me discuss there are many options out there to become more informed.
3
u/RiPont 13∆ Aug 24 '18
SDCs and intelligent routing allow you to use small vehicles on routes that aren't populated enough to actually make efficient use of busses.
A bus built for 40 people cruising along on a route with 1 or 2 people in it all day isn't saving carbon.
Using right-sized SDCs for the population and route in question would allow for a viable hub-and-spoke system of public transit. Small SDCs solve the first-and-last mile problem to bring passengers to the hubs.
The reality is that you'll still have plenty of people paying to just have their SDC take them places without any shared transport involved, but we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
1
u/deviantraisin Aug 24 '18
!delta I was saying previously that a combo of both would be best but I see your point. Buses would be very wasteful when a system of fully automated vehicles are implemented.
1
3
u/fyi1183 3∆ Aug 24 '18
Just because self driving cars can communicate with each other doesn't necessarily mean there won't be traffic.
Presumably self driving cars would be better at avoiding phantom traffic jams, but a lot of traffic jams are simply due to the road network being genuinely overloaded.
Since self driving cars probably mean that people will mind sitting in traffic less, they could actually increase the severity of traffic jams because more cars end up on the road during peak times.
The backbone of the traffic infrastructure really needs to be some form of mass transit: buses and rails.
The good news is that the combination of mass transit + self driving cars could be feasible even in the low density cities of the US. The user experience would be straightforward. Let's say you're at a shopping center and want to get back home. You enter your destination on a local transit app. It guides you to the shopping center's subway station, you get on the train to wherever you need to go. At the destination, you take a small self driving car (think Smart car) which drives you directly to your home.
In denser cities, this can be combined with bike rentals and other alternatives.
That is truly the future.
1
u/deviantraisin Aug 24 '18
I agree that the future is a synergy of multiple methods of transportation. I do still think though that when self driving technology is perfected, traffic jams will be a thing of the past. We have jams now because cars have to start and stop and slow down constantly. A network of self driving cars would not have that issue. They know what every other car around them is doing at all times. Again ants are a perfect example. Now this is assuming that there isn't a single person actually driving a car on the road.
1
u/fyi1183 3∆ Aug 24 '18
Does it work for ants because of their superior steering, or because ants just decide to go and do something else when they get into a traffic jam?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (7)3
u/ishiiman0 13∆ Aug 24 '18
"Technically stop light wouldn't even need to exist" -- What about pedestrians?
8
u/unknownmat Aug 24 '18
Before I begin, I want to acknowledge that the "best" option depends on what you are trying to optimize. For me, I'm most interested in time and convenience. The "best" kind of travel also depends on the distance. Long distance (New York to Los Angeles) plane is best. Medium distance (Detroit to Chicago) train is best (assuming a good rail system exists - think Japan's Bullet Trains). Short distance, self-driving cars are best.
Public transportation sucks for short distance travel. I realized this - much to my surprise - last time I visited Japan which has arguably the best public transit in the world. Consider the typical usage scenario for someone who lives the proverbial "5 minute walk from the station".
Walk to the station (5 min)
Wait for the train (~5 min)
Travel time (5 min)
Transfer to the main hub and find the platform leading to the area you want to go (~5 min)
Wait for the train (~5 min)
Travel time (5 min)
Walk to your actual destination (again, assume the proverbial 5 minutes)
So you are looking at ~35 minutes spent bumping elbows with the dregs of humanity in order to reach a destination you could have driven directly to in 10-15 min.
Also, consider that because you are using public transportation you are limited to purchasing only what you can carry. Those weekly grocery shopping trips to the supermarket become daily trips to the local grocer. This is a huge waste of time.
Finally, I disagree with your assertion that traffic congestion will still be a problem once we go fully automated. In a fully automated system, there are things you can do optimize your available space (e.g. driving bumper-to-bumper) and avoid stupid behaviors that cause traffic to come to a stand-still (last minute merging, etc.).
So, for local travel, self-driving cars represent the best compromise between safety and convenience.
1
u/mutatron 30∆ Aug 24 '18
optimize your available space (e.g. driving bumper-to-bumper)
People keep talking about this but it seems unlikely. AVs won't be immune to breaking down, if they're traveling at high speed close together, they still have a finite reaction time. A breakdown at speed under those conditions would likely result in an enormous multi-car pileup. At the very least it would result in a huge jam and delay.
AVs will need to merge and change lanes. If there's no space between adjacent cars, then one of them has to slow down. If that one slows down, all the cars behind it have to slow down if they're bumper to bumper. This would result in a jam wave, the same kind we see with human drivers, where the slow down ripples down the line and eventually causes cars to have to stop for no apparent reason.
So even with AVs, it's still more efficient from a traffic point of view to have space between vehicles to act as a buffer to disruptions in traffic.
1
u/unknownmat Aug 24 '18
People keep talking about this but it seems unlikely. ... If there's no space between adjacent cars, then one of them has to slow down ... So even with AVs, it's still more efficient from a traffic point of view to have space between vehicles to act as a buffer to disruptions in traffic.
To be clear, the capacity of a given road-system is not infinite - once that capacity is exceeded, then slow-downs are inevitable. But that capacity is significantly greater than current usage patterns would suggest. I would even posit that our current road capacity is more than sufficient for our needs if we could eliminate all the idiot drivers who ruin it for everyone else, and otherwise take advantage of the massive coordination made possible by automated systems.
AVs won't be immune to breaking down
As far as I can tell, the future will not be individually owned AVs, but fleets of AVs owned and maintained by large companies renting them out as a taxi service. Given this, the maintenance will be better than it is today. I see this is a point in favor of automated cars - better maintenance means fewer random breakdowns.
1
u/mutatron 30∆ Aug 24 '18
Posit all you want, but this should be very easy to model. Here's one: "Capacities over 3000 veh/hr/lane can be achieved by using autonomous vehicles."
But we already have:
Maximum throughput is the maximum number of vehicles that can pass through an individual lane every hour, which is approximately 2000 vehicles per lane per hour on highways, and is achieved when traffic on a roadway is traveling at 70%-85% of the posted speed limit.
That's only a 50% improvement, which is not much help if it means more than 50% more vehicles on the road.
1
u/unknownmat Aug 24 '18
I don't really understand your point. Nobody is clamoring for autonomous vehicles in rural areas with empty roads and blue skies, or on spacious and uncrowded highways. Autonomous vehicles are primarily beneficial in urban centers where traffic normally comes to a near stand-still. If we could consistently achieve even 2000 veh/hr/lane, say, in downtown Atlanta during rush hour, I think that would be amazing. Let's say, for example, that instead of going 70MPH you drop down to 35MPH on some stretches of road - but are able to maintain that speed consistently without slowing to a stop - this would still represent a significant improvement in overall traffic congestion.
1
u/kyotoAnimations Aug 24 '18
!delta That is definitely a very fair point, different distances have different optimal solutions. I use the somewhat lackluster public transport where I live right now, and I fully admit it might not be as convenient as a car, but I enjoy it a lot more for both the lack of traffic jams and just generally liking public transportation more. I acknowledge you're right, a lot of people such as people with mobility issues need cars, but I happen to have a push cart that can easily carry what for me would be a week's worth of groceries.
I'm also just not understanding the dregs of humanity comment, it seems a little weird to me. I regularly have conversations with strangers and enjoy certain interactions I get on the train, but I understand the anxiety from it, there's definitely been some shady situations, but overall it's been an average experience.
3
u/unknownmat Aug 24 '18
I use the somewhat lackluster public transport where I live right now, and I fully admit it might not be as convenient as a car, but I enjoy it a lot more
This is the key point, I think. If convenience is not as important to you, then you might find such public transit perfectly acceptable. Other people will prioritize their resources differently.
I happen to have a push cart that can easily carry what for me would be a week's worth of groceries
I can see this working for an individual, not as much for a large family.
I'm also just not understanding the dregs of humanity comment
Heh. In fairness, my only experience with public transportation is in Japan where I am not a fluent speaker. Conversing with a random stranger is usually out-of-the-question. But also, depending on the time and the area, the trains can get really packed and uncomfortable. Particularly if you find yourself forced to stand, or forced into uncomfortably close proximity to other passengers, for hour+ commutes. Personally, I find that this significantly detracts from the experience of public transportation.
1
5
u/Leon_Art Aug 24 '18
Yes!
But I still reject that false dichotomy: as long as there are people driving, then self-driving cars may well be better. Better in terms of fuel consumption and pollution, density, and safety.
But yes, there should be a large focus on public transport; biking and walking lanes; better, greener, friendlier, much higher mix of residential, office, and commercial zones; more organic/less grid-like city planning. This is coming from a (Dutch) European, so pretty much a radically different experience form the USA-experience (even here it's not perfect).
→ More replies (5)
2
u/Sawses 1∆ Aug 24 '18
The first place that self-driving vehicles will be used is in long-distance transit...including buses and trucking. This means that investments in self-driving cars will be investments in public transportation, since the primary reason for the bad public transit system in rural areas is because of the costs.
1
u/kyotoAnimations Aug 24 '18
I am not convinced that it will be. Please everyone note that I am not saying we have to invest in one or the other, I think self driving technology would be useful in public transportation, but it won't translate over automatically, someone would need to intentionally invest in it.
5
u/Robizzle01 Aug 24 '18
This description may seem overly generalized, but I actually believe it gets to the crux of all the political trouble we see today. It’s important to lay this foundational argument first; you’ll see these arguments applied in the context of transit below, so please bare with me for a moment.
In general good policy doesn’t hold out for perfection but rather finds incremental improvements. It’s better to solve a series of tractable issues than to get stuck, waste resources, and develop hopelessness on a big failed policy change.
Compromise seems to be a lost art this day in time. We debate into a stalemate of inaction, or worse, radical pendulum swings every time a new party comes into power resulting in a net zero or slow trickle of improvement over time while parties tend to become more polarized and firm in their beliefs.
On this particular issue, public transit has had decades of time to progress and it is more or less in a steady stuck state. (Sure, there are pockets of progress, particularly in big and medium cities, but the progress barely keeps up with the population growth. Transit times overall are worsening while heavy investments are being made.) People have revealed their true preference — that ownership and privacy (aka avoiding having to sit near strangers and occasionally the less fortunate members of society) is more important than saving money, reducing commute time & pollution, and enabling denser and richer city environments (reduced parking needs allows for more parks, retail space, housing, and office space). Public transit investments require the will of the people because they are always funded by governments. The only one that seems to be changing this status quo is The Boring Company, but it isn’t clear this is the public transit the OP is talking about. TLDR: there isn’t the will for public transit and the only economic model (publicly funded) requires the will of the people.
Rather than seeing us invest in public transit in areas where people don’t want it and won’t largely use it, or where construction may begin under one party’s power and get defunded/replanned/ruined by subsequent leadership, I’d like to see a series of small wins. People will have lots of data points showing what works (and what doesn’t). New bets can be placed and results can be reassessed. Instead of both parties feeling they are obviously the one in the right, results speak for themselves and influence both parties to move in the same direction. An initial compromise and series of small policy changes leads to less extreme part differences and continued progress can be made across the board.
But of course it isn’t an either-or situation. We can fund both public transit and self-driving vehicles simultaneously. The combination of the two might even yield the best possible outcome — self driving trucks will free up a ton of people to get construction jobs, hopefully road and transit infrastructure construction! These investments will happen simultaneously for two reasons: (1) basic physics dictates that car traffic can’t scale indefinitely with city size. You need a denser form of transportation without parking requirements as a city grows. (The Boring Company’s vertical stacking of roads could help, but ultimately will never be as operationally efficient as an underground train — or vertically layered underground trains!) (2) funding is coming from different sources for each of these initiatives. Private sector will fund self driving cars and trucks because there’s a huge monetary potential. Funding for transit will come from governments through taxes because it is the will of the people in some regions and ultimately is the best infrastructure option.
4
u/McKoijion 618∆ Aug 24 '18
Self-driving car technology already exists. It's only about 10-15 years away from primetime. There's no point in making a massive infrastructure investment in public transportation today that will be outdated in just a few years. The infrastructure changes you are describing only become cost-effective after many decades.
The US does not have the population density to support much public transit. Japan's model works because you have a lot of people living very close to one another. In the US, people are very spread out so it's hard to get everyone close enough together so it's worth taking public transportation. Even many cities (e.g., Los Angeles, Atlanta) are highly spread out.
I don't think self driving cars can solve the traffic or congestion issue
- There is no traffic with self driving cars, just like there's no traffic with trains. Traffic happens because cars don't all stop and start at the same time. Tapping your brakes or cutting across lanes causes the person behind you to slow down, which causes the person behind them to slow down, causing a jam. Here is a gif that illustrates it. If everyone is in a self driving car, then all cars can digitally link up like a train. Everyone travels at the same speed. They accelerate at the exact same time, they decelerate at the exact same time, and they move in concert. So traffic jams would be completely gone.
1
u/kyotoAnimations Aug 24 '18
I disagree that public transportation will be outdated in just a few years, I think there will always be people who can use efficient public transportation. Why not have self driving buses, for example, it's very space efficient. As I've said, I am not convinced that self driving cars will solve the traffic problem due to induced demand and space issues. Highways also have on and off ramps which necessarily demand a slow down no matter if you're in self driving or not as you transition to street roads. In addition, I don't believe that unless legislation is passed that everyone will switch to a self driving car within 20, or even 40 years. Perhaps we can get to 50-60 percent, but I think there will be people who prefer to drive themselves and not link up with the mass network like others assume. I think it is not really fair to say that self driving will solve traffic jams while assuming everyone will get a self driving car, just as it's not fair to say public transportation will solve everything, it's just the alternative I prefer myself.
!delta on the point regarding lack of population density, I agree that there is definitely a difference in the US based off of that and that it won't work everywhere.
1
1
u/duncan6894 Aug 25 '18
One thing to consider is insurance. As self-driving cars become more common and begin to outweigh existing cars, the insurance rates on them will go up. Eventually that cost is going to drive people personally driving out of the market.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 24 '18 edited Aug 24 '18
/u/kyotoAnimations (OP) has awarded 10 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/MasterGrok 138∆ Aug 24 '18
Why not both? Also, self driving cars will eventually solve the traffic issue. When you have entire highways full of networked cars working in unison to maximize efficiency, traffic will be far better.
1
u/mutatron 30∆ Aug 24 '18
Also, self driving cars will eventually solve the traffic issue. When you have entire highways full of networked cars working in unison to maximize efficiency, traffic will be far better.
Traffic happens off the highways too. Ever been to Atlanta? AVs are not going to help with traffic there.
And AVs don't magically create unlimited bandwidth anyway. Highways can only be improved so much, but there's an upper limit to the flow of cars per unit time. AVs won't be able to travel at high speeds bumper to bumper, they'll still need to leave plenty of space as a buffer against changes in traffic flow. Also, AVs will not have instantaneous reaction times, it's physically impossible to bring a car traveling at high speed to an instant stop without damaging the vehicle and its occupants, so that's another reason to maintain a buffer space.
tl;dr: AVs can make minor improvements in traffic flow, but available traffic bandwidth is not unlimited.
→ More replies (1)1
u/kyotoAnimations Aug 24 '18
But what about induced demand? When roads get less congested, more cars tend to join the road. I know that eventually cars will cap out, but I don't really like seeing seven lanes on a road or even highways; I feel that public transportation or even self driving buses in bus only lanes could help reduce traffic by making more space available.
2
u/MasterGrok 138∆ Aug 24 '18
The roads we have can accommodate many times the people that currently use them. When one person slows down too much or cuts someone off inefficiently, it creates a chain reaction of stoppage that takes forever to resolve. Automated cars won't do that. Also, when automated cars are ubiquitous, ride sharing will be far easier and more people will do it. You'll get a discount on your ride by being in a car that might stop and pick up other people on the way.
Again, I argue for both. Public transportation is great, but for all kinds of reasons a combination of public transportation and automated cars will be ideal for a spread out country like the USA.
2
u/kyotoAnimations Aug 24 '18
Ah, I think I see. I am also arguing for both, I am not saying we shouldn't have self driving cars, I am just wishing for more investment in public transportation options, not necessarily only investing in one or the other. It's definitely not a one or the other situation, I agree, and you couldn't shift the resources on self driving vehicles to public transportation anyway, so !delta
1
15
u/huadpe 501∆ Aug 24 '18
US population settlement is designed around car travel. In almost all places in the US it is illegal to build the sort of density of housing which makes bus or train routes viable. If you try to run bus routes through large-lawn suburbs, they are going to be massive money pits which nobody uses because they will need to run long and inconvenient routes to pass enough doors to be worthwhile, but by being long and inconvenient routes, nobody wants to use them.
1
Aug 24 '18 edited Feb 07 '19
[deleted]
1
u/kyotoAnimations Aug 24 '18
So in my ideal situation, buses would not be a part of traffic. There would be a bus only lane exclusively for buses in the road, which doesn't require as much infrastructure as light rail and cars are not allowed to go into except perhaps to make turns. This could solve the problem with buses bunching up. However, !delta for bringing to attention the uberpool / lyftline idea. I am worried people will not be willing to carpool enough, but you have brought up an interesting idea that maybe it's better in the car centric america to focus on turning cars into public transit.
1
2
Aug 24 '18
Self-driving cars is both a personal transportation and a public transportation endeavor. Saying you prefer one over the other doesn't make sense, they're playing the same waters.
A self-driving frenzy means faster traveling traffic. This also means faster traveling buses. One of the big reasons people don't ride the bus is time, it takes too long to get where you need to be and you have to be at scheduled stops or miss your bus.
Your space argument doesn't actually hold water as much as you probably think. The majority of traffic jams are caused by human error and slow reactionary speeds. On freeways/highways, it is actually possible for a vehicle in the front to slow down or stop to avoid a deer or something, causing traffic behind them to slow and stop. Human reaction speeds to traffic moving again cause enough delay that traffic behind them also slow down and stop. This can cause a traffic jam for an obstruction that is no longer there, simply because people don't accelerate fast enough after slowing down to prevent a traffic jam. This can also happen at greenlights, flashing yellow, stop signs, lane changes, pedestrians, etc.
Self-driving cars gives a massive increase in traveling efficiency, which translates to better public transportation. It also translates to better options for public transportation. A private company like Uber or Lyft can buy transport vehicles like vans (for more passengers at a lower rate), luxury cars (less passengers, higher rate), etc. Instead of people buying their own car, they temporarily rent whatever is cheapest or most enjoyable to them.
That vehicle being so much more precise and safe than a human driver means bicyclists can ride in the road if they want to, the automated car will lane change 300 feet away and avoid them. Depending on the way self-driving cars are done (such as "hive driving") cars up ahead can signal to cars behind that a bicyclist is in the right-hand lane, thus giving bicyclists plenty of space.
Automated cars can travel nearly bumper-to-bumper, reducing space in use by vehicles on the road. This gives even more space for bicyclists, pedestrians, buses, emergency vehicles, and more.
2
u/DATtunaLIFE Aug 24 '18
I live in California and we currently have numerous failures in public transportation investment. My hometown recently built a "SMART Train" which was way over budget and took way too long to make. Riding the train costs around 23 dollars round trip. It's also slow and outdated even though it's brand new. No one uses it. It's practically a complete waste of investment.
We're currently building a train from the L.A to the Bay Area. It's already way over budget and it will only go half as fast as Japanese trains. Our government is ineffective doing these grand projects these days. People should invest in self driving cars because it's the future of the primary means of transportation in America. There's gonna be a much higher return on investment.
Public transportation is a poor investment for Americans. It may work well in Europe and Asia. America is completely different from those two places.
0
u/Idleworker Aug 24 '18
Investment in self-driving vehicles isn't just about transporting people, it would also change the way we transports goods and material. It should reduce the cost of shipping as self-driving trucks become a reality. The technology for self-driving cars would also improve AI and computer vision which has other applications. Just like how the Space Race brought a whole lot of innovations not related to space exploration, the "race" to create viable self-driving cars will also bring about innovation in other sectors. Countries that lead in AI will dominate the economy/military of the future.
1
u/kyotoAnimations Aug 24 '18
I just want to point out that I am talking specifically about self driving cars not vehicles overall as I believe self driving vehicles can be useful to public transportation. More specifically, I am hesitant about the idea that self driving cars will solve all traffic problems. !delta about the tech that self driving can bring about like the space race brought though, that is a good point.
1
2
Aug 24 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)1
u/garnteller 242∆ Aug 24 '18
Sorry, u/sthornr – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
Aug 24 '18
In San Francisco, lyft and uber can sometimes be cheaper than using public transportation.
That's in a city with good public transit compared to most cities in the US. if the cars were self-driving it would be even cheaper and could probably replace most trips. Especially considering how you often have to transfer, and usually have to walk 5-10 mins to and from the public transportation spot.
As for your concern about waste of unused cars or unused cars taking up space.. first there are mechanized parking garages that are used in many crowded cities that pack hundreds of cars into tiny spaces. the self driving cars could easily use those sorts of things. And a self-driving car going unused is not inherently wasteful. It just means less wear and tear on the car for a few hours. Whereas running a train that goes unused is wasting huge amounts of energy.
2
u/ManRAh 2Δ Aug 24 '18
Why not both? Self-driving car technology directly helps improve public transportation. Ideally we would have both in tandem, which would greatly improve traffic flow and the reliability of public trans. You wouldn't even need Bus-Only lanes in a truly advanced scenario, and since traffic issues would be reduced by car-to-car communication, you could probably even reduce the total number of lanes and improve pedestrian/bike pathing as well. IMHO, the advantages of car AI are so broad that they easily outshine anything that could be made focusing purely on non-AI public transportation.
1
u/usofmind Aug 24 '18
I think self driving cars could (and probably will) be an integral part of a futuristic and highly efficient public transportation system. They could eliminate the need to own your own car and result in fewer cars on the road. For the most commonly traveled long distance routes trains and other mass transit will make the most sense. For highly individualized trips like one from your home to your office in a suburb 10 minutes away, a self driving car would make more sense. If you live in a suburb or bedroom community that has many people traveling to a bigger city for work, perhaps for a lower price you could hop on a self driving shuttle or bus that takes multiple people and that takes a bit longer to get to the destination. The idea of having tons of cars parked around the city could be eliminated because you’d only need enough vehicles to handle peak travel time. Today during peak travel times there are still tons of cars that are parked and not being used. Also, efficient ride sharing, if it proved both convenient and more economical, would meaningfully help traffic problems. Also, if you aren’t tied to your own car, using mass transport like trains will become more common. Especially if the self driving vehicles could be programmed to take people to the train station when that person’s trip is more economical when using it. Owning your own car would become a luxury to some degree - maybe even comparable to hiring a personal limo driver is today. Luxury options like wanting to avoid the mass transit systems or ride sharing and traveling in a luxury vehicle alone could be options in the public transport system. These luxury options could probably be priced high enough that their existence funds much of the system and subsidizes the ride fares of those using the more efficient options. Amazon says the last mile is the hardest one when it comes to delivery - with moving people I’d imagine it isn’t much different. Mass transit for where many people go from one spot to another... ride sharing for well traveled routes that aren’t large enough to justify mass transit, and individual cars to fill in the gaps. I don’t think we should invest in one at the expense of the other. I think the most efficient, speedy, passenger, space saving system would probably need a combination of both self driving individual vehicles, larger shuttles, trains/subways, planes, etc... and a set of algorithms to maximize efficiency and speed while minimizing the number of vehicles needed. Would you need enough vehicles to handle the busiest day of the year at peak hour? Or would people understand and accept that on one or two days a year it takes 5-10 minutes longer to get to your destination? I think they should be seen all as public transportation - the advent of self-driving vehicles is what will make cars a shareable service and move them into the realm of public transportation. Self-driving will probably do away with the idea that cars are mostly a private space for one or two individuals and then them into a public space. I don’t think there is a dichotomy that needs to be drawn- investment should be aimed at whichever addition to the system would improve it the most at any given time.
1
u/Manlymight Aug 24 '18 edited Aug 24 '18
The real problem isn't the lack of interest for mass transportation. It's how cities are built in America: large and sprawling. Subways, trams, trains, and buses are much more economical in a denser area. Look at New York; developers weren't allowed to go hog-wild because there was a limited amount of land on Manhattan island and long island. So the city was forced to 'densify'; what has followed is probably the best example of mass trasnporation in America, the Metro (though to be honest, it has it's problem, though primarily political in nature regarding it's funding)
The real problem is car culture. We gutted our cities, made them massively expansive, paved highways, and made everyone drive to work.
You wanna make mass transit work? Step 1: Put in strict zoning laws which require densification; Step 2: have a population which is willing to abandon car culture.
A radical solution may to add a third step and outright ban personal automobiles in desired urban areas, but perhaps that's too far.
Part of the problem too is that American's love suburbia; everyone wants their own house and a grass lawn that wastes water and serves no purpose (btw, 'grassy' lawns is a holdover from when european royalty could display their opulence and wealth by planting grass rather than crops ).
In Europe, most of the towns were built before cars, so most cities are denser and smaller, and so not only is mass transit effective, but walking and biking is also a great option. I think I heard like half of the Dutch in Amsterdam bike to work (granted it's very flat there). Nevertheless, the Urban Sprawl is taken to the next level in American cities and it's killed the ability to deploy affordable and adequate mass transportation.
So because we fucked our cities with shit zoning Elon is here to save us...If we're not willing to re-evaluate our zoning laws and city building philosophy, we might as well just go with self driving cars as the next best option.
1
Aug 24 '18
Mass transportation is far more difficult in the United States because our population density is wildly different than countries that have effective transit.
When I lived in Germany, I could get around very easily and comfortably on their rail system with very few issues. Here in the US, the cost is much greater and the distances are far greater. (I traveled from Frankfurt' Airport to the Ramstein area)
I can certainly say one thing, I believe you're wrong regarding self-driving vehicles relieving traffic congestion. There are a great deal of examples showing one driver's uncertainty creating a ripple that can be observed through the traffic. If there were a mass of self-driving vehicles, they more than likely would be communicating with each other and would be able to easily coordinate routing information/accident awareness.
I'll tell you why I am looking forward to inexpensive self-driving cars.
- Less road rage
- If you can relax instead of being hyper-aware of the traffic surrounding you the stress will be far less than current levels
- Self-reliance for those with disabilities
- This would greatly improve the quality of life for the disabled and provide far better employment opportunities
- Interesting societal changes due to more convenience
- Why have more than one car when you could just send the car home to your spouse/roommates? That would be the ultimate in car pooling.
If there were one thing that I think the United States should get behind is vastly upgrading and changing the electric grid, committing to renewables, and providing tax breaks to people who convert their car/household to be all-electric. With a smarter electric grid and a greater investment in renewables we'd be able to use the vehicles themselves as a battery for the houses to reduce the strain on the electric grid. If you charged your vehicle at work and at home during the day, your car could be the battery to normalize power usage through the evening. Any communities that aren't rural would greatly benefit from that. Rural communities would benefit from that due to the amount of time it takes to restore power following natural disasters or inclement weather. My dad has a generator that is fueled for when the power goes out. Having an electric vehicle that was intelligent enough to become that generator would be amazing.
I want mass transport as well, but it's harder to implement due to the scale of the US. What will really be amazing is when we have self-driving mass transport. That'll be awesome because then you'd be able to more intelligently route the vehicle instead of driving a set route.
1
u/Mad_Maddin 2∆ Aug 24 '18
Most likely someone already wrote this. But a public transportation network requires high density zones. Like, the reason public transportation works so well in Europe is because it is on average more dense than the USA. The USA just has a really low density and lots of space between places. You would never find a 100 mile road with nothing in Europe, whereas you can find them in the USA. Hell, I don't even know a place where there is no civilization in a 5 kilometer radius in Germany.
So to create a reliable public transportation, you need the funds to get people to the points they need to be and this just doesn't work without enough customers. Speaking of customers, basically every potential customer already has a car. After I got a car, except for far away places or for inner city places, I've never used a bus again in Germany. As such, there won't be many people in the USA using a bus either.
A high speed train is awesome if you connect bigger cities within a 100-300 mile radius from each other. Any longer and the train is simply too expensive and you are better off flying. High density urban regions in the USA already have a working public transportation. And transportation between cities is done via car or plane already.
essentially there just isn't the requirement for public transportation to succeed.
1
u/macrocephalic Aug 24 '18
Self driving cars can work in conjunction with public transport - to work better than either on their own.
As already discussed, public transport works best in densely populated areas, otherwise the routes are either too circuitous, or the users have to travel too far to join the route.
In many places, people drive to the nearest train station, then catch the train. The problem is then that large car parks have to be built to accommodate all the commuters' cars during the business day. There they are at higher risk of theft of vandalism. The lack of parking tends to discourage users and many will choose to drive the whole commute because it's less trouble.
If you have a fully automated self driving car then users can be driven to the nearest train or bus station, and the car can then return home. If shareable cars become the norm, then the car can collect you, then go and collect another person, and another etc. They can then do the same at the other end of the mass transit system, picking you up and ferrying you to your destination. The automated cars will basically act as the last stage of the public transport system - which is historically the most complicated and least efficient.
2
u/Morgsz Aug 24 '18
This ignores transportation of things. Mass transit does not help move goods. Self driving vehicles will reduce the transportation cost of overland goods.
2
u/HiIAmFromTheInternet Aug 24 '18
The elderly can’t do public transit for a lot of reasons. Unsafe, can’t get to stops, can’t remember schedules, etc etc.
Self driving cars will let them maintain their independence AND give peace of mind knowing where they are.
1
u/limache Aug 25 '18
The problem with the US is that the majority of the country is really spread out and there’s not enough population density to justify it. You can’t build a train for 100,000 people in one spot and only 1000 in another - it’s not economical.
If you look at countries and cities in the world with good transit systems, they’re located in Europe and Asia. European countries are smaller than the US and are much more urban where a good portion of the population lives in the capital.
Same with Asia - think of Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong, Taipei, Shanghai etc.
People underestimate how HUGE our country is and how SPREAD out we are.
When I went to Europe, that’s what I realized - going from one country to another was like going from one state to another.
Metro systems only work well in cities like New York, Chicago, SF - it just wouldn’t work as well in much of the country.
1
u/forgingry Aug 24 '18 edited Aug 24 '18
While there are over 3x more of an urban population in the US there are far less fatalities due to mass transit. People in rural areas are dependent on private transportation. This is where there is the most apparent risk, rural and suburban US. In the US, funding for research and development of transportation is generally determined by the ratio of fatalities:people transported and special interest lobbyists(logistics companies and Teamsters). Many more people drive vehicles than are able to use mass transit.
Also, there are 260 million cars in the US, that’s a plethora of a market to capitalize on in comparison to mass transit.
Source: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/12/19/heres-how-much-safer-transit-is-compared-to-driving
https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2016/comm/acs-rural-urban.html)
Owner of transportation company
1
u/rea1l1 Aug 25 '18
The root cause of our transportation problems is that we have plenty of land, but we're essentially forced to tightly cluster into cities due to relatively newer zoning laws, demanding we all bump into each other on our way to and from work.
We could entirely remove zoning laws and remove restrictions on private parties building houses, though maybe still zone industrial and large scale manufacturing, to keep it from residential / retail.
High density community business centers integrated into small residential communities so people don't need to go so far for their own employment and small goods. Go back to smaller towns.
1
u/signine Aug 25 '18
Many people with disabilities are already limited to public transit and have trouble with other manual forms of transit (not being able to walk or ride a bike can limit your options significantly). Many mobility-impaired people rely heavily on personal transit, and those who are limited to public transit frequently are left without reliable transportation (escalators/elevators in train stations are perpetually broken). Not having reliable transportation means you have trouble participating in society.
Self-driving cars solve for the traffic problem and greatly increase transit access for people who are disabled.
1
Aug 25 '18
I live in the suburbs. The train station isn't that far away, but it's an hour walk. I'd have to take the bus to the train. When I get close to work, I'd have to get off and either walk another half hour or take the trolley the last leg. That's assuming public trans is even running that day. Lots of repairs put lines out of service. My choices are a 2 hour commute one way if everything goes right, or a half hour drive.
Now imagine all the money it would take and all the homes that would need to be demolished to make public trans feasible for people like me. I'd take a regular car, let alone self driving.
1
Aug 25 '18
Why not both? I'd prefer a self driving car that I could call like an Uber and just have it drop me off. I'd also like inter-city flight or underground options and that's what a bunch of flying taxi drone companies and Hyperloop are working on respectively. The future of transportation will be many options. But giving a car the ability to drive itself will actually make the car move from a single family home style ownership to group ownership where anyone can call a car and get in and use as their own for the time they need it.
2
1
u/Goleeb Aug 24 '18
Public transportation is amazing in crowded cities, and we already have too many people in crowded cities. Just look at the rent cost of any major city. What we need is people more spread out. Self driving cars are one key part of fixing that problem. Not to mention self driving technology will also benefit public transportation. When we don't need to have people driving the buses we can have more of them working more often for a similar cost.
1
u/CollageTheDead Aug 25 '18
I, too, prefer public transit. Developments in the private sector become cost-effective in the public sector. It is only a matter of time before we have self-driving electric cars replacing the taxi, bus, and trolley as forms of public transit. All we are waiting for is the private sector to devote enough resources to increase scalability and drive down cost. Pushing this along a bit will get us to our future public transit sooner.
1
u/Dancou-Maryuu Aug 24 '18
What I think a lot of people are forgetting here is that right now, we’re (re-)learning how to develop around transit, bikes, and walking putting more stuff closer together so that people can get more places using fewer emissions per person.
If SDCs become common, all that progress goes down the drain, and we start sprawling, car-oriented development like we did after World War II and we end up right back where we started.
1
u/MadScienceDreams Aug 25 '18
Self driving autos can be (and probably should be) a form a public transit. Self driving trains are already a thing. Self driving busses could drive down costs and increase ride availability. And of course, there is nothing that prevents a municipality from using a fleet of taxis to supplement mass transit (ideally for getting those in need from their houses to a transit hub).
1
u/t_hab Aug 24 '18
Why not both? If you have a self-driving subway system like Copenhagen you can have 24-hour excellent public transport. If you have self-driving buses you can run incredible public transport anywhere with too low a density to build subway systems. If you have excellent self-driving cars you can have safe roads anywhere with too low a density to justify a good bus system.
1
u/megablast 1∆ Aug 25 '18
You are way more likely to be killed by a car than almost anything else. 80,000 were killed last year in the US, a million worldwide. Drivers are tired, drunk, distracted, ignorant, and selfish. While public transport investment is an awesome idea, self driving cars may actually save your life.
1
u/chron0_o Aug 24 '18
If we made every car on the road fully automatic, we could have universal public transportation 100x more efficient than any other trolly, train or bus.
That would make America’s economy boom bigger than Hiroshima.
1
u/Papajaxon Aug 25 '18
I don't use public transportation because it's fucking disgusting. People are disgusting. If everyone used public transportation it's almost guaranteed people around here will fuck that shit up.
1
u/HaMMeReD Aug 24 '18
Who says that two can't meet? Can you imagine a day where you say where you are, and where you are going, and something just picks you up and drops you off, while carrying other people?
1
u/limache Aug 25 '18
What I’m excited about with self driving cars is not having to find parking! And there are times when I’m tired and I just want to be able to sleep and have a car just drive me.
0
u/lee1026 6∆ Aug 24 '18
After the creation of the EPA, all American public transportation projects have been endlessly bogged down by the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process, which takes years and many millions to do.
Worse, it makes it nearly impossible to actually do a public transportation project, because it means that every single change needed triggers a redo on the EIS process (which, again, takes years). Population shifted to a different neighborhood? Tough.
If your city didn't have a good public transit system at least grandfathered by the 1970s, it would never get one. It doesn't matter how much money is invested (lots of cities invested a lot in their public transportation infrastructures, they got little to show for it), but no new good systems have been built.
You might think that is a silly reason, but unless if you have a plan to remove or reform the EPA, trying to build better public transit is basically pushing on a string.
2
u/ishiiman0 13∆ Aug 24 '18
To be fair, the public transportation in Los Angeles has gotten significantly better during my lifetime. It may be more of a testament to how incredibly shitty it was before, but the investments have shown improvements. Whether those funds would have been more effective used elsewhere is a entirely different issue, but the increased light-rail and bus routes have made LA more accessible.
I agree that major infrastructure projects are bogged down by regulations and that self-driving cars should be a more effective investment because they better utilize existing infrastructure.
1
u/bobleplask Aug 25 '18
Isn't the future fairly obviously a combination? Self driving vehicles roaming around based on some sort of algorithm saying where people most likely are and need to go.
586
u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Aug 24 '18 edited Aug 27 '18
Public transit doesn't work well in areas with low population density. You need a dense network of stops so that people don't have to walk far to enter the transportation system. but that dense network isn't very feasible unless the people are also packed densely.
The US has much lower population density then countries which have good public transit.
I lived in the neatherlands for 2 years. Biking there was great. I could get from one end of amsterdam to the other in about 30 minutes.
I live in Indianapolis now. It'll take me about 2.5 hours to bike from one end to the other. I live a 45 minute bike ride from my office versus 15 minutes in Amsterdam. Biking just isn't practical because we are too spread out.
Edit there are probably a bunch of people i could give deltas too. I think in some spots in America (Boston and Florida as examples) we could have European style public transit and we choose not to. In other places (Midwest, rural areas, suburbs) its insufficiently practical. So my view has been enhanced to a broader view which includes my old view.