6 ms·

I think the reason has to do with the perception that ridership should be rapidly increasing and it isn't. Population is up, urbanization, is up, but public tra

I think the reason has to do with the perception that ridership should be rapidly increasing and it isn't. Population is up, urbanization, is up, but public transit isn't keeping pace. That's an interesting story because it is non-obvious. I don't think there much else to the media fixation than that.

TulliusCicero 10y ago
Building good rail transit infrastructure takes a pretty long time, and it's very expensive. You can also have good bus service, but having it competitive with driving usually requires bus-only lanes, and that's a difficult proposition in America. If you look at Seattle, for example, people there are desperate for new transit, and they want it done as soon as possible, but the timelines for the upcoming ST3 package have most of it taking upwards of a couple decades to complete. For most Americans, getting around means driving, and other modes are seen as either impractical (walking), a toy (biking), or just for the poor (transit). It's a relatively difficult culture in which to improve alternative modes of transport.
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  For most Americans, getting around means driving, and other modes are seen as either impractical (walking), a toy (biking), or just for the poor (transit). It's a relatively difficult culture in which to improve alternative modes of transport. Self-driving cars will go a long way towards improving this. The focus needs to be on avoiding silly mistakes in the meantime, like sinking billions of dollars into new fixed-rail transit routes that will be obsolete the day they enter service.
  - akgerber 10y ago
    Self-driving cars may lead to marginal improvements in road throughput, but shared-vehicle transportation will always be able to move more people in the same amount of space. If a transit route has sufficient ridership to justify investing in rail, it is already going to be very congested at commuting hours, and will remain so after self-driving cars become common.
    - CamperBob2 10y ago
      Self-driving cars may lead to marginal improvements in road throughput, but shared-vehicle transportation will always be able to move more people in the same amount of space. It's not useful to "move more people in the same amount of space" if those people are going to end up someplace other than where they need to be. Classic case of optimizing the wrong parameter. You can't apply 19th-century rail route design to 21st century transit problems... well, you can, but it's never going to be optimal. Self-driving cars may lead to marginal improvements in road throughput, but shared-vehicle transportation will always be able to move more people in the same amount of space. If a transit route has sufficient ridership to justify investing in rail, it is already going to be very congested at commuting hours, and will remain so after self-driving cars become common. The whole roadway system can be a "transit route," with the proper planning. A fleet of autonomous vehicles is a train... but one that has none of the drawbacks of fixed routes.
      - akgerber 10y ago
        A fleet of autonomous vehicles transporting people from disparate point to disparate point still requires a lot of roadway space per human being transported, which is the root cause of road congestion. That is as true in 2016 as it was in 1916, and will remain true in 2116. Fixed-route rail transit requires compatible land use to be successful, but most of our most economically successful areas are already very dense— and the only reason than Silicon Valley isn't is that such density is illegal, with the absurd result of $2M ranch houses. A bilevel rail car can comfortably transport 160 people in the footprint of four Honda Civics cruising as an autonomous car-train.
        CamperBob2 10y ago
        The thing is, though, the roads already exist. And we know we're using them suboptimally now.
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    Self-driving is also a long way off in terms of the entire fleet. Poor people aren't driving new teslas. Even if every new car sold is non-human drivable, it will take a couple decades before the entire fleet is wholly autodrive. It would also be naïve to assume that any future tech will dominate the market when there isn't even a product yet in the market. City planners cannot take autodrive for granted. (imho it won't ever happen. People like driving cars, but that is a different debate)
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - CamperBob2 10y ago
      Even if every new car sold is non-human drivable, it will take a couple decades before the entire fleet is wholly autodrive. Coincidentally, that's about how long a typical urban rail transit project takes these days. Here in the Seattle area, we're looking at a 30+ year timeline for light rail construction. In military parlance this is known as "fighting the last war." It would also be naïve to assume that any future tech will dominate the market when there isn't even a product yet in the market. City planners cannot take autodrive for granted. (imho it won't ever happen. People like driving cars, but that is a different debate) I like to drive, too, and I spend an unreasonable proportion of my own money on cool cars. But the fact is that self-driving tech will turn driving into a hobby rather than a necessity. Right now, our "hobby" kills about 30,000 people per year in the US alone. The transition away from human drivers will look like an example of punctuated equilibrium. It may seem like little progress is being made, but we'll all wake up one morning and discover that the status quo has become impossible to justify. Life (and death) on the roads will change faster than almost anyone can imagine. Poor people aren't driving new teslas. Not a problem, because the idea that everybody has to own one or two cars to be a full-fledged adult is going to become obsolete at around the same time.
ddebernardy 10y ago
Perhaps Uber/Lyft lobbyists doing ground-level work? /tinfoil

TulliusCicero 10y ago

Building good rail transit infrastructure takes a pretty long time, and it's very expensive. You can also have good bus service, but having it competitive with driving usually requires bus-only lanes, and that's a difficult proposition in America. If you look at Seattle, for example, people there are desperate for new transit, and they want it done as soon as possible, but the timelines for the upcoming ST3 package have most of it taking upwards of a couple decades to complete. For most Americans, getting around means driving, and other modes are seen as either impractical (walking), a toy (biking), or just for the poor (transit). It's a relatively difficult culture in which to improve alternative modes of transport.

CamperBob2 10y ago
For most Americans, getting around means driving, and other modes are seen as either impractical (walking), a toy (biking), or just for the poor (transit). It's a relatively difficult culture in which to improve alternative modes of transport. Self-driving cars will go a long way towards improving this. The focus needs to be on avoiding silly mistakes in the meantime, like sinking billions of dollars into new fixed-rail transit routes that will be obsolete the day they enter service.
- akgerber 10y ago
  Self-driving cars may lead to marginal improvements in road throughput, but shared-vehicle transportation will always be able to move more people in the same amount of space. If a transit route has sufficient ridership to justify investing in rail, it is already going to be very congested at commuting hours, and will remain so after self-driving cars become common.
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    Self-driving cars may lead to marginal improvements in road throughput, but shared-vehicle transportation will always be able to move more people in the same amount of space. It's not useful to "move more people in the same amount of space" if those people are going to end up someplace other than where they need to be. Classic case of optimizing the wrong parameter. You can't apply 19th-century rail route design to 21st century transit problems... well, you can, but it's never going to be optimal. Self-driving cars may lead to marginal improvements in road throughput, but shared-vehicle transportation will always be able to move more people in the same amount of space. If a transit route has sufficient ridership to justify investing in rail, it is already going to be very congested at commuting hours, and will remain so after self-driving cars become common. The whole roadway system can be a "transit route," with the proper planning. A fleet of autonomous vehicles is a train... but one that has none of the drawbacks of fixed routes.
    - akgerber 10y ago
      A fleet of autonomous vehicles transporting people from disparate point to disparate point still requires a lot of roadway space per human being transported, which is the root cause of road congestion. That is as true in 2016 as it was in 1916, and will remain true in 2116. Fixed-route rail transit requires compatible land use to be successful, but most of our most economically successful areas are already very dense— and the only reason than Silicon Valley isn't is that such density is illegal, with the absurd result of $2M ranch houses. A bilevel rail car can comfortably transport 160 people in the footprint of four Honda Civics cruising as an autonomous car-train.
      - CamperBob2 10y ago
        The thing is, though, the roads already exist. And we know we're using them suboptimally now.
- sandworm101 10y ago
  Self-driving is also a long way off in terms of the entire fleet. Poor people aren't driving new teslas. Even if every new car sold is non-human drivable, it will take a couple decades before the entire fleet is wholly autodrive. It would also be naïve to assume that any future tech will dominate the market when there isn't even a product yet in the market. City planners cannot take autodrive for granted. (imho it won't ever happen. People like driving cars, but that is a different debate)
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    Even if every new car sold is non-human drivable, it will take a couple decades before the entire fleet is wholly autodrive. Coincidentally, that's about how long a typical urban rail transit project takes these days. Here in the Seattle area, we're looking at a 30+ year timeline for light rail construction. In military parlance this is known as "fighting the last war." It would also be naïve to assume that any future tech will dominate the market when there isn't even a product yet in the market. City planners cannot take autodrive for granted. (imho it won't ever happen. People like driving cars, but that is a different debate) I like to drive, too, and I spend an unreasonable proportion of my own money on cool cars. But the fact is that self-driving tech will turn driving into a hobby rather than a necessity. Right now, our "hobby" kills about 30,000 people per year in the US alone. The transition away from human drivers will look like an example of punctuated equilibrium. It may seem like little progress is being made, but we'll all wake up one morning and discover that the status quo has become impossible to justify. Life (and death) on the roads will change faster than almost anyone can imagine. Poor people aren't driving new teslas. Not a problem, because the idea that everybody has to own one or two cars to be a full-fledged adult is going to become obsolete at around the same time.

ddebernardy 10y ago

Perhaps Uber/Lyft lobbyists doing ground-level work? /tinfoil