11 ms·

Elon Musk seems like a rich guy from the California suburbs interested in decarbonizing his lifestyle— a reasonably noble goal, but the California suburbs have

Elon Musk seems like a rich guy from the California suburbs interested in decarbonizing his lifestyle— a reasonably noble goal, but the California suburbs have a ton of issues totally unrelated to their ecological footprint— not least of which is that their car-dependent transportation system can't scale beyond a certain level of density without massive congestion. And preventing them from scaling beyond that density instead results in a profoundly broken housing market because everyone who wants to live in California is required to bid up a profoundly expensive patch of land. A modest improvement in road throughput from automation is nothing but a short-term solution, and might well make congestion worse because of the reduced time/attention cost of driving— potentially much worse, since people many more people could move into RVs occupying the only free land in coastal California, its roads. Elon Musk does not look like a smart guy when he rejects what clever outsiders who have been paying attention to these issues for years have to say and by calling them idiots— after all, he supposedly got into rocketry by devouring textbooks, not by getting angry during his commute. This graphic makes the point about why cars can never be a solution for mass urban mobility better than pretty much anything else: https://i.imgur.com/sCvRIEd.gif https://i.imgur.com/sCvRIEd.gif

fartcannon 9y ago
The first thought that came to mind when I looked at that gif is, "this is what 200 people in their detached homes look like, this is what 200 people in their condos look like, this what 200 people sharing a multi-bed dorm room look like."
candiodari 9y ago
Maybe it's just me but that picture makes the exact opposite point from what you're saying. It clearly points out that the difference between cars and other forms of transportation is linear. Public transportation doesn't scale this especially well, as anybody using public transport knows, but this article is a nice summary [1]. We all know what would happen to bus stops, stations, and generally to public places if people on buses actually had anywhere near the density "made possible" by public transport. It just won't work. While for instance, adding roads in the sky (ie. very long bridges) scales exponentially, for obvious reasons. As does just flying (flying, incidentally, is a lot more efficient than people think). People don't want this, for obvious reasons, but there comes a point in cities where we have no choice. Frankly, cities like depicted in "the fifth element" and "star wars" are the future. Probably more rails, less floating, but the general idea is where we'll be going. Doesn't even really matter if they have public or private transport. Given how fast public transport upgrades (even when absolutely required by the numbers of people they just refuse to upgrade for decades. Yes. Decades) and how comfortable it is, and add of course the fact that they just don't support the use cases cars enable (some of which, like an elderly or disabled person doing groceries, are absolute requirements) and you get to the point : private transport is far preferable to public transport. [1] http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/MassTransit.HTM http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/MassTransit.HTM
- craftyguy 9y ago
  > Public transportation doesn't scale this especially well, as anybody using public transport knows, but this article is a nice summary Then how do cities like Singapore, with a population density of nearly 8k people per square km, have far less traffic than pretty much any major US city? They make public transportation work, and if you've ever been there, you'd know it works really well. Just because western countries haven't figured it out yet doesn't mean that it can't work at all. Public transportation in the US sucks because the US, as a whole, wants it to suck.
  - mc32 9y ago
    Well, there are a couple of reasons they can make it work: -Tax cars really highly. -Have car quotas -Suppress dissent and in practice a one party system -Build out public transit -Pop Density. -No land for sprawl available.
    - jacobolus 9y ago
      You don’t need to run a one-party police state in order to have a functioning public transit system or limit urban car use, and it’s entirely possible to have a one-party police state while also having car-dependent suburban sprawl.
      - mc32 9y ago
        Granted. I'm just pointing out those were the reasons it was "easy" to pull off in SG.
    - akgerber 9y ago
      Japan also has excellent public transportation, and is much less restrictive than Singapore. In major metro areas, its rail systems even make a profit. It has sprawl but it's far less auto-oriented than the US. Some major factors are: -expressways are almost all tolled -carbuyers are required to demonstrate that they own/rent a parking space, rather than policy than mandates every new housing unit and business have enough parking that demand is more than sated even at zero cost -zoning that allows sufficiently-dense land use such that most residences are within a short walk of a rail station— this station usually has groceries and other necessities nearby, as well as schools within walking distance
on_and_off 9y ago
I think that other big cities that are progressively closing to cars have it right. If I look at paris, it already has a very dense subway system. The main drawback is that it closes between midnight and early morning and that it could be even denser. Close the roads to cars (except emergencies and buses), promote bikes and electric longboards (along with other transportation systems that are easy to carry under your arm when you are done) and you have a solution for megalopolis.
clairity 9y ago
i'm multi-modal--train, bus, car, feet, & bike (before it was stolen)--so i especially appreciate your points, but i don't think it has to be an either-or situation. let's build more efficient cars/roads and build better public transportation. let's level the playing field--stop subsidization (or at least even out the subsidization) and internalize unaccounted-for costs like road maintenance and pollution, and let them compete. even though musk might seem short-sighted in his approach, his vision and determination are admirable. let's have more of that, especially in the public transportation space. (i agree that automated cars is not going to be a panacea, at least not in the next 30 years, but it's an meaningful step forward in transportation tech)
- akgerber 9y ago
  Electrification of the vehicle fleet will be great for cities (especially in Europe) just because it'll reduce a huge source of point pollution on urban blocks. And I'd definitely enjoy owning a car or campervan for hiking/biking trips and other adventures — or paying $.75 a mile for a robocar to pick me up for similar trips. I just hate the way that nearly all American cities make car ownership mandatory for full citizenship, and American land use laws mean almost all new development is almost purely auto-oriented (this is somewhat less the case in a subset of post-2008 development, but these developments are generally islands of sorta-walkability in an inhumane hellscape of high-speed arterials).

fartcannon 9y ago

The first thought that came to mind when I looked at that gif is, "this is what 200 people in their detached homes look like, this is what 200 people in their condos look like, this what 200 people sharing a multi-bed dorm room look like."

candiodari 9y ago

Maybe it's just me but that picture makes the exact opposite point from what you're saying. It clearly points out that the difference between cars and other forms of transportation is linear. Public transportation doesn't scale this especially well, as anybody using public transport knows, but this article is a nice summary [1]. We all know what would happen to bus stops, stations, and generally to public places if people on buses actually had anywhere near the density "made possible" by public transport. It just won't work. While for instance, adding roads in the sky (ie. very long bridges) scales exponentially, for obvious reasons. As does just flying (flying, incidentally, is a lot more efficient than people think). People don't want this, for obvious reasons, but there comes a point in cities where we have no choice. Frankly, cities like depicted in "the fifth element" and "star wars" are the future. Probably more rails, less floating, but the general idea is where we'll be going. Doesn't even really matter if they have public or private transport. Given how fast public transport upgrades (even when absolutely required by the numbers of people they just refuse to upgrade for decades. Yes. Decades) and how comfortable it is, and add of course the fact that they just don't support the use cases cars enable (some of which, like an elderly or disabled person doing groceries, are absolute requirements) and you get to the point : private transport is far preferable to public transport. [1] http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/MassTransit.HTM http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/MassTransit.HTM

craftyguy 9y ago
> Public transportation doesn't scale this especially well, as anybody using public transport knows, but this article is a nice summary Then how do cities like Singapore, with a population density of nearly 8k people per square km, have far less traffic than pretty much any major US city? They make public transportation work, and if you've ever been there, you'd know it works really well. Just because western countries haven't figured it out yet doesn't mean that it can't work at all. Public transportation in the US sucks because the US, as a whole, wants it to suck.
- mc32 9y ago
  Well, there are a couple of reasons they can make it work: -Tax cars really highly. -Have car quotas -Suppress dissent and in practice a one party system -Build out public transit -Pop Density. -No land for sprawl available.
  - jacobolus 9y ago
    You don’t need to run a one-party police state in order to have a functioning public transit system or limit urban car use, and it’s entirely possible to have a one-party police state while also having car-dependent suburban sprawl.
    - mc32 9y ago
      Granted. I'm just pointing out those were the reasons it was "easy" to pull off in SG.
  - akgerber 9y ago
    Japan also has excellent public transportation, and is much less restrictive than Singapore. In major metro areas, its rail systems even make a profit. It has sprawl but it's far less auto-oriented than the US. Some major factors are: -expressways are almost all tolled -carbuyers are required to demonstrate that they own/rent a parking space, rather than policy than mandates every new housing unit and business have enough parking that demand is more than sated even at zero cost -zoning that allows sufficiently-dense land use such that most residences are within a short walk of a rail station— this station usually has groceries and other necessities nearby, as well as schools within walking distance

on_and_off 9y ago

I think that other big cities that are progressively closing to cars have it right. If I look at paris, it already has a very dense subway system. The main drawback is that it closes between midnight and early morning and that it could be even denser. Close the roads to cars (except emergencies and buses), promote bikes and electric longboards (along with other transportation systems that are easy to carry under your arm when you are done) and you have a solution for megalopolis.

clairity 9y ago

i'm multi-modal--train, bus, car, feet, & bike (before it was stolen)--so i especially appreciate your points, but i don't think it has to be an either-or situation. let's build more efficient cars/roads and build better public transportation. let's level the playing field--stop subsidization (or at least even out the subsidization) and internalize unaccounted-for costs like road maintenance and pollution, and let them compete. even though musk might seem short-sighted in his approach, his vision and determination are admirable. let's have more of that, especially in the public transportation space. (i agree that automated cars is not going to be a panacea, at least not in the next 30 years, but it's an meaningful step forward in transportation tech)

akgerber 9y ago
Electrification of the vehicle fleet will be great for cities (especially in Europe) just because it'll reduce a huge source of point pollution on urban blocks. And I'd definitely enjoy owning a car or campervan for hiking/biking trips and other adventures — or paying $.75 a mile for a robocar to pick me up for similar trips. I just hate the way that nearly all American cities make car ownership mandatory for full citizenship, and American land use laws mean almost all new development is almost purely auto-oriented (this is somewhat less the case in a subset of post-2008 development, but these developments are generally islands of sorta-walkability in an inhumane hellscape of high-speed arterials).