4 ms·

Our entire system is kinda broken with how roads/parking are relative to size. So it's not an easy problem to fix overnight. With an our established and spread

Our entire system is kinda broken with how roads/parking are relative to size. So it's not an easy problem to fix overnight. With an our established and spread out infrastructure. But self driving cars will eventually lead to smaller pods or smaller vehicles. Potentially fewer lanes or even allowing non standard road shapes and straightaway and fewer parking lots. I think autonomous vehicles is a stepping stone to a better infrastructure and community

muninn_ 10y ago
I think the actual problem is a political one. Too many industries need highways to get bigger and to have more Americans buy cars.
- Kadin 10y ago
  The problem is definitely political, but I don't think it's a corporate conspiracy. Americans just don't like paying taxes, and aren't willing to pay taxes at the rates that would make Euro-style public transportation (with a mix of buses, trams, commuter rail, intercity trains, etc.) viable. Even in the cities that have marginally-decent public transportation systems, they're chronically underfunded. You could probably build a hell of a public transportation network if people were willing to pay what they currently spend on average on automobile-related expenses (or even a substantial fraction of it) towards a shared network, but people have been making that argument to the American public for the better part of a century now and it's not gained a lot of traction. I'm not sure that self driving vehicles really change the underlying political calculus that makes Americans unwilling to pay for that sort of public infrastructure. But they could still be an improvement, in safety and resource consumption, vs the current status quo.
  - muninn_ 10y ago
    I agree and I don't think it's a conspiracy any more than I would any other powerful lobbying group. Autonomous vehicles, in my opinion, have the potential, if not high probability to make things worse. Instead of increasing population density in areas like the Great Lakes region, it'll make it easier to commute and build expensive, no poor people allowed, suburban enclaves filled with chain restaurants and a replica of an uptown or downtown where people can pretend they live in a city. Even when State or local governments have funds available, they opt not to build out other options. I think the USDOT offered many billions to states like Ohio to build out rail connections, but they didn't want the funds. To add to that, the states and local governments know about things like induced demand, but they just keep building out these giant highways any way. They could have taken the funds and poured it into public transportation. There isn't much politics cost to it. Traffic is always bad, and people are going to be angry before, during and even after construction because it never solves the traffic problem. It makes me so sad and drives me crazy that we're doing this to ourselves.
closeparen 10y ago
Airlines solve the intercity transportation problem just fine. The only advantages rail could have are lower cost and the absence of the TSA. We're one train bombing away from the same screening system, and the cost is not lower (and if you value your time, it's much higher).

muninn_ 10y ago

I think the actual problem is a political one. Too many industries need highways to get bigger and to have more Americans buy cars.

Kadin 10y ago
The problem is definitely political, but I don't think it's a corporate conspiracy. Americans just don't like paying taxes, and aren't willing to pay taxes at the rates that would make Euro-style public transportation (with a mix of buses, trams, commuter rail, intercity trains, etc.) viable. Even in the cities that have marginally-decent public transportation systems, they're chronically underfunded. You could probably build a hell of a public transportation network if people were willing to pay what they currently spend on average on automobile-related expenses (or even a substantial fraction of it) towards a shared network, but people have been making that argument to the American public for the better part of a century now and it's not gained a lot of traction. I'm not sure that self driving vehicles really change the underlying political calculus that makes Americans unwilling to pay for that sort of public infrastructure. But they could still be an improvement, in safety and resource consumption, vs the current status quo.
- muninn_ 10y ago
  I agree and I don't think it's a conspiracy any more than I would any other powerful lobbying group. Autonomous vehicles, in my opinion, have the potential, if not high probability to make things worse. Instead of increasing population density in areas like the Great Lakes region, it'll make it easier to commute and build expensive, no poor people allowed, suburban enclaves filled with chain restaurants and a replica of an uptown or downtown where people can pretend they live in a city. Even when State or local governments have funds available, they opt not to build out other options. I think the USDOT offered many billions to states like Ohio to build out rail connections, but they didn't want the funds. To add to that, the states and local governments know about things like induced demand, but they just keep building out these giant highways any way. They could have taken the funds and poured it into public transportation. There isn't much politics cost to it. Traffic is always bad, and people are going to be angry before, during and even after construction because it never solves the traffic problem. It makes me so sad and drives me crazy that we're doing this to ourselves.

closeparen 10y ago

Airlines solve the intercity transportation problem just fine. The only advantages rail could have are lower cost and the absence of the TSA. We're one train bombing away from the same screening system, and the cost is not lower (and if you value your time, it's much higher).