6 ms·

I disagree, because robotic transportation is going to make public transportation obsolete long before the debt acquired is paid off. And by then, robotic cons

I disagree, because robotic transportation is going to make public transportation obsolete long before the debt acquired is paid off. And by then, robotic construction and material will have advanced so much that it will be much cheaper to build underground in the future than it is now. But underground is definitely the way to go for transportation, even in earthquake country. The surface should be quiet and safe, our streets converted to bike paths and gardens. So lets at least make sure that underground construction could also accommodate vehicles other than trains. Because all that track will eventually be ripped out when we are liberated from the tranny of the train schedule.

chipsy 11y ago
Public transportation will take up the same advances as private. Eventually. Private is going to jump on that stuff first, of course. Robocars constitute a percentage improvement at the surface, but don't overcome inherent capacity/land-use/energy tradeoffs between a packed subway car and a congested highway. You cannot get around the problem of automobiles using more space. [0] You will have robocars, but also robobuses and robotrains. This is a "all over, everywhere, better" improvement, not a "this one wins and crushes the others." Flexibility is important - the city is making some progress on bike paths and can continue doing much better still. Furthermore, better architecture, land use, and future lifestyle changes hold the potential to keep density at a higher average level while improving the feeling of street life to be more like the "peaceful suburban" ideal - walkable, yet quiet and non-disruptive. Framing transportation as a land-use problem - something built up from prior decisions about what real estate to build and where to build it in order to minimize average trip times and potential disruptions - rather than an engineering exercise of making as many roads and rails and tunnels and bridges as you can so that every vehicle may race along at 200 MPH for the smallest errand - drastically changes what you can do and the budget you can accomplish it with, which makes it more likely to be realized in our lifetimes. That said, I agree with the article. SF has fallen far behind its housing demand, and the lack of a "virtuous cycle" of transit projects to encourage development in outlying neighborhoods shares some blame in that. It should not be the case that it's harder to go between downtown and the Richmond than to make the same trip to Oakland. [0] https://www.flickr.com/photos/carltonreid/7999178447/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/carltonreid/7999178447/
- Symbiote 11y ago
  "Robotrains" are already fairly common: [1]. However, replacing road traffic with robots is more appealing. Railways already have an almost-perfect safety record, and the cost of the driver is spread over many passengers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_...
lostlogin 11y ago
That last line typo had me chuckling. I really hope you are right about robotic transportation coming soon, but I'm very skeptical. Has anywhere got any robotic system replacing public transportation coming anytime soon?
- stretchwithme 11y ago
  ha ha. Once cabs are automated, it won't matter if public transit is. Without human drivers, cabs will be cheaper to use than your own car. And that's when public transit dies.
cylinder 11y ago
Trains are robotic transportation already. Most new trains are driverless, and even in the NYC system many lines are automated with the train driver only monitoring and watching the doors.
- stretchwithme 11y ago
  Yeah, but getting one to take me directly to my destination doesn't even work in Manhattan. A cab will always be much faster and will get a whole lot cheaper once its robotic. An urban train can only get as fast as it already is.

chipsy 11y ago

Public transportation will take up the same advances as private. Eventually. Private is going to jump on that stuff first, of course. Robocars constitute a percentage improvement at the surface, but don't overcome inherent capacity/land-use/energy tradeoffs between a packed subway car and a congested highway. You cannot get around the problem of automobiles using more space. [0] You will have robocars, but also robobuses and robotrains. This is a "all over, everywhere, better" improvement, not a "this one wins and crushes the others." Flexibility is important - the city is making some progress on bike paths and can continue doing much better still. Furthermore, better architecture, land use, and future lifestyle changes hold the potential to keep density at a higher average level while improving the feeling of street life to be more like the "peaceful suburban" ideal - walkable, yet quiet and non-disruptive. Framing transportation as a land-use problem - something built up from prior decisions about what real estate to build and where to build it in order to minimize average trip times and potential disruptions - rather than an engineering exercise of making as many roads and rails and tunnels and bridges as you can so that every vehicle may race along at 200 MPH for the smallest errand - drastically changes what you can do and the budget you can accomplish it with, which makes it more likely to be realized in our lifetimes. That said, I agree with the article. SF has fallen far behind its housing demand, and the lack of a "virtuous cycle" of transit projects to encourage development in outlying neighborhoods shares some blame in that. It should not be the case that it's harder to go between downtown and the Richmond than to make the same trip to Oakland. [0] https://www.flickr.com/photos/carltonreid/7999178447/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/carltonreid/7999178447/

Symbiote 11y ago
"Robotrains" are already fairly common: [1]. However, replacing road traffic with robots is more appealing. Railways already have an almost-perfect safety record, and the cost of the driver is spread over many passengers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_...

lostlogin 11y ago

That last line typo had me chuckling. I really hope you are right about robotic transportation coming soon, but I'm very skeptical. Has anywhere got any robotic system replacing public transportation coming anytime soon?

stretchwithme 11y ago
ha ha. Once cabs are automated, it won't matter if public transit is. Without human drivers, cabs will be cheaper to use than your own car. And that's when public transit dies.

cylinder 11y ago

Trains are robotic transportation already. Most new trains are driverless, and even in the NYC system many lines are automated with the train driver only monitoring and watching the doors.

stretchwithme 11y ago
Yeah, but getting one to take me directly to my destination doesn't even work in Manhattan. A cab will always be much faster and will get a whole lot cheaper once its robotic. An urban train can only get as fast as it already is.