3 ms·
I see a lot of knee-jerk and reactionary positions towards autonomous vehicles from the Urban and transportation planning communities. Skepticism is healthy, b
by Fricken 10y ago
I see a lot of knee-jerk and reactionary positions towards autonomous vehicles from the Urban and transportation planning communities.
Skepticism is healthy, but what scares me is that a failure to thoughtfully ask 'What could go right?' Could lead to the marginalization of planners role in ensuring robotaxis are implemented responsibly, and they'll just get steamrolled by capitalists, and many of the same mistakes will be made as when the car companies aggressively campaigned to place the automobile at the centre of American life in the early to mid 20th century. A costly error that even half a century after we've come to acknowledge it, we've been unable to meaningfully alter the course.
Urban planners have been beating the same drum for over a generation now, and outside of a few small victories their efforts have been mostly fruitless. They're stuck on autopilot.
Are Self driving cars 'The Answer'? No.
Are they a potentially valuable tool for addressing longstanding pain points in urban transportation systems? Absolutely.
- Analemma_ 10y agoSo, part of the issue is that, in Seattle, the question of "can self-driving cars replace mass transit infrastructure?" has political implications right now. The article didn't really mention it, but I think that's because it's the Seattle Times, so they would assume that readers are familiar with the background context. To explain: after the usual [0] decade of planning, Seattle's regional transit authority has a $50 billion expansion plan (including more rail and bus service) finalized, and it is coming up for a vote shortly. One of the arguments that the opposition brings up a lot is, "we don't need ST3 because self-driving cars will take care of the transit problems." A counter-argument made by supporters of the plan (including me), is that since Seattle is already snarled with traffic (average commute times have doubled since 2010, and it's only expected to get worse), the burden of proof is on these people to show that self-driving cars can replace mass transit, and so far they haven't done so. Without specifically accusing you (I don't know if you know anything about this situation), I will say that the suggestion of "we should wait and see" is very similar to the concern trolling that has been used by a lot of ST3 opponents to try and derail the project. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_process
- Fricken 10y agoYeah, don't wait for self driving cars, it could be 30 years before they're fully realized. Autonomous vehicles can do wonderful things when it comes to addressing first and last mile problems, but as the backbone of a commuter transit system, rail's capacity to do the heavy lifting will be as viable as it ever was.
- snrplfth 10y agoSome small number of urban planners have been "beating the drum" for a while, but the vast majority of urban planning during the 'Age of the Car' has been pro-automobile and anti-everything-else. It wasn't private capitalists that demolished downtowns for expressways, or mandated minimum parking for nearly every kind of building, or prohibited high-density development, or required looping, unwalkable street networks, or used zoning to separate residences and shopping/jobs, or any of these things. Sure, car companies have campaigned for their advantage, like everyone. But the transformation of US transportation to a car-dominant model has in very large part been the product of urban planners and their rules. And it continues to be - for all the academic valorization of non-automobile transport, the old rules that advantage cars remain in place, almost everywhere.