8 ms·

Exactly. Self-driving cars will be the suburbs' renaissance.

by UVB-76 11y ago

criddell 11y ago
When I was younger (in my 20's), I thought I would never move from the city center. I loved having lots of stuff close by. Getting up and taking a short walk to get some coffee and meet friends was awesome. The crowds and options were exciting and I loved my life. Then my wife and I decided to have kids and so when our lease was up on our apartment, we took the plunge and bought a house in the 'burbs. We had two kids and I adjusted to living on the edge of the city. The unthinkable happened - I love it in the suburbs. I don't think I could live in an apartment again.
baldfat 11y ago
I have 5 kids and live in the city. I think Burbs need to go away. People should either go City or Country but mixing both has not shown to be a successful model.
apendleton 11y ago
Except that many cities have no interest in building the necessary highways to make more driving practical. Washington, DC, where I live, is unlikely to ever have any more inbound highways constructed, and the ones we have are already congested. Any new transportation capacity into the city will almost definitely be mass-transit. There's simply no political will within the city to do the kind of awful urban-renewal-style tearing up of neighborhoods that'd be necessary for it, and frankly we don't really care if suburbanites want to more easily drive in in their self-driving cars.
- Grishnakh 11y ago
  The problem there is that the DC subways are some of the worst in the nation now, thanks to years of mismanagement and neglect. They've had fatal accidents, and they're ridiculously slow because they single-track the trains so much. The Washington Post has articles about all the problems with the DC Metro, including how the train operators and controllers are at each others' throats, and the system can't get competent people to work there (they just get fed up and quit in a couple months).
  - Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
    >The problem there is that the DC subways are some of the worst in the nation now, thanks to years of mismanagement and neglect. The Metro has faced years of neglect, but it is still a functional system that moves hundreds of thousands of people daily. Despite all of the investment in roads, traffic is still a terrible mess from Gainesville and Fredericksburg to the District line. > They've had fatal accidents, and they're ridiculously slow because they single-track the trains so much. In the same year the DC Metro killed one person, 26 people died on DC's roads. Virginia and Maryland have their own traffic fatality reports. The single tracking is mostly a weekend issue. It's terrible, and makes the system useless on weekends half the time, but the commute is generally good. They have a railcar shortage that is currently hurting reliability partly caused by the Japanase tsunami delaying new equipment, but once that's solved the numbers will increase once again. Weekends will remain terrible until someone competent takes the reigns.
Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
Self driving cars take way more space than equivalent mass transit. Even assuming that self driving cars double road capacity, highways have much lower capacity than mass transit. There are advantages to self driving cars to be sure, and they will change the transportation game, but I predict they will not fundamentally alter the city vs. suburb equation. For starters, it is highly unlikely the urban planning mistakes of the 60s where downtowns were flattened with freeways will be repeated. We're already seeing cities tear down or bury existing freeways to correct these mistakes. Cities from LA to Atlanta are investing in mass transit and are working on getting more walkable and dense. I predict that self driving cars will actually be a big boon for cities themselves as it would now be easier for city dwellers to visit transit inaccessible destinations or shopping trips that require a car. Zipcar, Car2Go, Enterprise's car rental club and the like are already bridging the gap, but self driving cars would help those who can't drive such as children or the elderly or even those who never learned to drive.
- criddell 11y ago
  I think SDCs are going to revolutionize the public transit business too. Light rail makes a lot of sense in certain places. It's incredibly expensive though, but worth subsidizing. Buses though, are mostly failures. If you look at the numbers for buses, you see they are traveling empty far too often. I think it makes more sense for public transit to operate on a fleet of smaller vans. You go to a stop, hail a ride, and a shared ride pulls up and takes you to your destination, making stops along the way. I think fixed routes running even when there are no passengers is ripe for an upgrade.
- UVB-76 11y ago
  I think self-driving cars could more than double road capacity, and almost eliminate congestion. There are so many exciting permutations. Major causes of congestion could be almost entirely eliminated (breakdowns and accidents) Vehicles could be routed more efficiently, and dynamic road tolls used to keep traffic flowing on popular routes. On-street parking could be eliminated, as fewer people will own their own cars, or their cars will be able to park themselves elsewhere. Meanwhile the absence of human drivers (and exhaust emissions, once we move to all-electric vehicles) will see a step-change in the take-up of cycling and walking in urban centres. This is just scraping the surface. Self-driving cars are going to change everything.
trgn 11y ago
There seem to be two opposed predictions of the effects of the SDC. In your view, shared by many technocrats, is that the SDC solves the negative problems of cars now: time now spent driving in an SDC can be spent reading, working, having breakfast, ... there's also the reasonable assumption that future cars will be electric, so the negative environmental effects of suburbs will be reduced. And SDCs will use the road more efficiently, reducing congestion, be safer, etc.. etc.. The way people lead their lives is more or less the same, but the SDC makes it better. Many urbanists hold - paradoxically - the opposite view. The SDC will kill the suburb. They assume that the SDC will operate on a rental model. SDC's will basically be taxis. The reasoning is, that when people no longer own a car, they have no need for a garage. So why live somewhere that is completely designed for cars? Parking minimums will no longer be required and safer (and slower) SV traffic will make being out&about on a bike or two feet much more pleasant. The quality of city living, in other words, will hugely improve because we don't need to dedicate so much effort/time/money in storing and maintaining a car. Cities can be scaled around humans again, and not around cars sitting idle for 90% of the time. The role that suburbs serve - a place that's convenient to own a car - will no longer be necessary. Plus, the SDC does not really solve the major problem of the suburb; the long term financial commitment (public&private) to maintain the infrastructure required to support sprawl. Both are positive predictions, so win-win? The outcome will probably be somewhere in between, but IMO the SDC won't save the suburb. The popularity of the suburbs is particular to certain historical factors that likely will not repeat; (1) urban renewal and the willful destruction of downtowns to accommodate cars, (2) school flight of young families. For (1), only the old guard in fly-over country still thinks more infrastructure is better. They're almost dead. And (2) has been played out. City schools can only improve, and suburban schools will lose their competitive advantage once the affluent start moving back closer to downtown. I also expect the real effect of the SDC will not be felt in the trendy coastal cities where urbanity was preserved. It will happen in all the mid-size metros where the core has emptied out and ended up basically 95% strip mall. For example, drive-till-you-qualify is hilariously irrelevant in many US metros. A lot of opportunity for an inversion of the dynamics.
- UVB-76 11y ago
  I think your view of car ownership and the suburbs is the wrong way round. In my experience, people in the suburbs own cars because they have to in order to live in the suburbs. They don't move to the suburbs because they own cars, and want somewhere to store them. The traditional appeal of the suburb (or the 'countryside') will endure. More space, lower crime rates, fewer neighbors, more privacy, better schools, a stronger sense of community, etc. If anything, the self-driving car will make the suburbs more attractive, as fewer cars will litter the place, paved-over front gardens can be returned to nature, etc.

Exactly. Self-driving cars will be the suburbs' renaissance.

by UVB-76 11y ago

Exactly. Self-driving cars will be the suburbs' renaissance.

When I was younger (in my 20's), I thought I would never move from the city center. I loved having lots of stuff close by. Getting up and taking a short walk to get some coffee and meet friends was awesome. The crowds and options were exciting and I loved my life. Then my wife and I decided to have kids and so when our lease was up on our apartment, we took the plunge and bought a house in the 'burbs. We had two kids and I adjusted to living on the edge of the city. The unthinkable happened - I love it in the suburbs. I don't think I could live in an apartment again.

baldfat 11y ago

I have 5 kids and live in the city. I think Burbs need to go away. People should either go City or Country but mixing both has not shown to be a successful model.

apendleton 11y ago

Except that many cities have no interest in building the necessary highways to make more driving practical. Washington, DC, where I live, is unlikely to ever have any more inbound highways constructed, and the ones we have are already congested. Any new transportation capacity into the city will almost definitely be mass-transit. There's simply no political will within the city to do the kind of awful urban-renewal-style tearing up of neighborhoods that'd be necessary for it, and frankly we don't really care if suburbanites want to more easily drive in in their self-driving cars.

Grishnakh 11y ago
The problem there is that the DC subways are some of the worst in the nation now, thanks to years of mismanagement and neglect. They've had fatal accidents, and they're ridiculously slow because they single-track the trains so much. The Washington Post has articles about all the problems with the DC Metro, including how the train operators and controllers are at each others' throats, and the system can't get competent people to work there (they just get fed up and quit in a couple months).
- Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
  >The problem there is that the DC subways are some of the worst in the nation now, thanks to years of mismanagement and neglect. The Metro has faced years of neglect, but it is still a functional system that moves hundreds of thousands of people daily. Despite all of the investment in roads, traffic is still a terrible mess from Gainesville and Fredericksburg to the District line. > They've had fatal accidents, and they're ridiculously slow because they single-track the trains so much. In the same year the DC Metro killed one person, 26 people died on DC's roads. Virginia and Maryland have their own traffic fatality reports. The single tracking is mostly a weekend issue. It's terrible, and makes the system useless on weekends half the time, but the commute is generally good. They have a railcar shortage that is currently hurting reliability partly caused by the Japanase tsunami delaying new equipment, but once that's solved the numbers will increase once again. Weekends will remain terrible until someone competent takes the reigns.

Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago

Self driving cars take way more space than equivalent mass transit. Even assuming that self driving cars double road capacity, highways have much lower capacity than mass transit. There are advantages to self driving cars to be sure, and they will change the transportation game, but I predict they will not fundamentally alter the city vs. suburb equation. For starters, it is highly unlikely the urban planning mistakes of the 60s where downtowns were flattened with freeways will be repeated. We're already seeing cities tear down or bury existing freeways to correct these mistakes. Cities from LA to Atlanta are investing in mass transit and are working on getting more walkable and dense. I predict that self driving cars will actually be a big boon for cities themselves as it would now be easier for city dwellers to visit transit inaccessible destinations or shopping trips that require a car. Zipcar, Car2Go, Enterprise's car rental club and the like are already bridging the gap, but self driving cars would help those who can't drive such as children or the elderly or even those who never learned to drive.

criddell 11y ago
I think SDCs are going to revolutionize the public transit business too. Light rail makes a lot of sense in certain places. It's incredibly expensive though, but worth subsidizing. Buses though, are mostly failures. If you look at the numbers for buses, you see they are traveling empty far too often. I think it makes more sense for public transit to operate on a fleet of smaller vans. You go to a stop, hail a ride, and a shared ride pulls up and takes you to your destination, making stops along the way. I think fixed routes running even when there are no passengers is ripe for an upgrade.
UVB-76 11y ago
I think self-driving cars could more than double road capacity, and almost eliminate congestion. There are so many exciting permutations. Major causes of congestion could be almost entirely eliminated (breakdowns and accidents) Vehicles could be routed more efficiently, and dynamic road tolls used to keep traffic flowing on popular routes. On-street parking could be eliminated, as fewer people will own their own cars, or their cars will be able to park themselves elsewhere. Meanwhile the absence of human drivers (and exhaust emissions, once we move to all-electric vehicles) will see a step-change in the take-up of cycling and walking in urban centres. This is just scraping the surface. Self-driving cars are going to change everything.

trgn 11y ago

There seem to be two opposed predictions of the effects of the SDC. In your view, shared by many technocrats, is that the SDC solves the negative problems of cars now: time now spent driving in an SDC can be spent reading, working, having breakfast, ... there's also the reasonable assumption that future cars will be electric, so the negative environmental effects of suburbs will be reduced. And SDCs will use the road more efficiently, reducing congestion, be safer, etc.. etc.. The way people lead their lives is more or less the same, but the SDC makes it better. Many urbanists hold - paradoxically - the opposite view. The SDC will kill the suburb. They assume that the SDC will operate on a rental model. SDC's will basically be taxis. The reasoning is, that when people no longer own a car, they have no need for a garage. So why live somewhere that is completely designed for cars? Parking minimums will no longer be required and safer (and slower) SV traffic will make being out&about on a bike or two feet much more pleasant. The quality of city living, in other words, will hugely improve because we don't need to dedicate so much effort/time/money in storing and maintaining a car. Cities can be scaled around humans again, and not around cars sitting idle for 90% of the time. The role that suburbs serve - a place that's convenient to own a car - will no longer be necessary. Plus, the SDC does not really solve the major problem of the suburb; the long term financial commitment (public&private) to maintain the infrastructure required to support sprawl. Both are positive predictions, so win-win? The outcome will probably be somewhere in between, but IMO the SDC won't save the suburb. The popularity of the suburbs is particular to certain historical factors that likely will not repeat; (1) urban renewal and the willful destruction of downtowns to accommodate cars, (2) school flight of young families. For (1), only the old guard in fly-over country still thinks more infrastructure is better. They're almost dead. And (2) has been played out. City schools can only improve, and suburban schools will lose their competitive advantage once the affluent start moving back closer to downtown. I also expect the real effect of the SDC will not be felt in the trendy coastal cities where urbanity was preserved. It will happen in all the mid-size metros where the core has emptied out and ended up basically 95% strip mall. For example, drive-till-you-qualify is hilariously irrelevant in many US metros. A lot of opportunity for an inversion of the dynamics.

UVB-76 11y ago
I think your view of car ownership and the suburbs is the wrong way round. In my experience, people in the suburbs own cars because they have to in order to live in the suburbs. They don't move to the suburbs because they own cars, and want somewhere to store them. The traditional appeal of the suburb (or the 'countryside') will endure. More space, lower crime rates, fewer neighbors, more privacy, better schools, a stronger sense of community, etc. If anything, the self-driving car will make the suburbs more attractive, as fewer cars will litter the place, paved-over front gardens can be returned to nature, etc.