6 ms·

Haven't recovered... What if it is should have not been? Many things were built and new subdivisions were creates with the notion the economy was ready for it

Haven't recovered... What if it is should have not been? Many things were built and new subdivisions were creates with the notion the economy was ready for it. It clearly was all built on lies and bad practice. That is why I question not that it is recovering but maybe it should have not been. I think the real solution is to leave these areas that clearly can't be supported by the local economy. And sorry to say. Yeah it's going to suck for a lot of people. But that is life. Not everything is going to be perfect. Holding on to a dying dream is only going to make it worse. (I am not cold hearted. I have just experience life enough to not let a sob story make me make irrational decisions).

criddell 9y ago
If you don't like suburbs, you're really going to hate what self driving cars bring. Get ready for sprawl like you've never seen it before. I, for one, plan on moving further out of the city as soon as my car can drive itself. The dream isn't dying. It hasn't even started yet.
- CalRobert 9y ago
  sadly I want to think you're wrong but in reality every last remote place will be destroyed by them. Why live in walnut creek when you could commute from yosemite?
- organsnyder 9y ago
  I could see it going either way. I actually have become more likely to use transit since ride-hailing is so much easier—if I'm ever stranded anywhere (lack of good bus route, after hours, etc.), I just have to open the Lyft app. Furthermore, when car ownership is no longer considered a necessity (as it is today in most of the US), the economics will change. Right now, my personal vehicle is a sunk cost, so I view car trips as costing close to zero—unlike the up-front, immediate transactions inherent to taking the bus or Lyft. Once I no longer own that vehicle (I'm not planning to replace it), all of my options will be on more equal footing, since they'll all be priced per-trip. Even self-driving vehicles will not be able to compete with mass transit when they're both priced similarly.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Exactly, owning a car in a city can easily cost 25+$/day. That buys a lot of public transportation.
    - lurr 9y ago
      But I get value beyond just point A-B travel out of that.
    - criddell 9y ago
      Self driving cars will eventually be much, much less expensive to own and operate than cards of today. That's assuming there isn't a massive per-mile tax imposed. I would also guess public transportation will evolve as well. I could see small and medium sized cities getting rid of buses, fixed schedules, and fixed routes and instead deploy a fleet of van-sized vehicles to pick up people on demand. I could see this as being something that gets outsourced to Uber and Lyft. Maybe it will be less expensive and better to just subsidize rides from private companies.
      - Retric 9y ago
        Mechanically, self driving cars are not going to be cheaper to build or maintain, and they will need just as much fuel if not significantly more to go park somewhere distant. You also need 2 parking spaces @ 100+$/month (one at home, one at the office) and pay to park other places. Insurance might get slightly cheaper, but I don't see the economics changing much and the added electronics are not going to be free.
        organsnyder 9y ago
        You're assuming that the ownership model stays the same. Many people (myself included) are predicting that the convenience and low cost of autonomous ride-hailing services will make car ownership a frivolity, much like owning an additional non-daily-driver is today.
        9y ago
- mbrumlow 9y ago
  I did not mean to imply I don't like the suburbs. I was implying that too many we're built to quickly with the expectation that the economy was going to be different or that it could sustain these new build outs. Maybe self driving cars will help. But I see that being a thing for those who can already afford to live in the city. These people are going to likely prefer new stock over run down hoods.
- jzymbaluk 9y ago
  That's one side of the coin, but on the other hand I can also envision self-driving cars enabling more urban density. Presumably self-driving cars don't really need to be parked on-site at the destination and could instead drop off their rider at the destination and park in some centralized parking garage. The car could even make money for its owner by being an automated uber driver while the owner is working or shopping or whatever. American cities give up a lot of space to parking lots, it'd be great to be able to reclaim some of it
  - astura 9y ago
    I heard an estimate that something like 25% of traffic in some areas at a given time are just people driving around looking for a parking spot. That's just nuts! It really remains to be seen what self driving cars would do to traffic.
    - criddell 9y ago
      In the future, the car will just circle the block while you shop.
      - azemetre 9y ago
        Sounds like an immense waste of energy, energy that can be better utilized. The more I hear about self driving cars the more I wish the US government would take investment into public transportation seriously.
- lurr 9y ago
  Yup, and self driving cars full of one person each who is taking a nap on their longer commute.
- JauntTrooper 9y ago
  Totally! Get in the car, kick back, take a nap, finish some work, do some video calls, watch some TV... long commutes will be so much more tolerable.
parzivalm 9y ago
It sounds like a lot of the people living there aren't holding on to a dying dream but are stuck. It isn't the residents fault that what happened did. Frankly you sure come off as cold hearted. You are talking about a problem affecting many people as nothing more than a mistake that we should just let die basically.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > You are talking about a problem affecting many people as nothing more than a mistake that we should just let die basically. But what if parent's premise is correct? What if these areas cannot support a local economy that justified the rapid build-out? What if these areas will never be able to support that? Sometimes the truth is hard. That doesn't make the truth-bearer "cold-hearted". Indeed, sticking our heads in the sand seems even worse, from a moral perspective.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- gshulegaard 9y ago
  Funny, I read his comment through a critical Economic lens and find myself in agreement. Capitalism is cold hearted (to use your wording)...there is no accounting for ethics in Supply and Demand models. This fact is an underlying foundation for many regulatory bodies. For example the EPA establishes and enforces environmental rules in the best interest of society as a whole rather than allow companies to pollute ad nauseam which would be in their individual bottom line's best interest. This type of regulation is meant to correct factors outside of market actors which lead to an equilibrium that is sub-optimal for society. You might say he sounds cold hearted, but that is unfairly judging an individual ethically for the speculation of an economic reality which has no ethicality.
  - parzivalm 9y ago
    To be fair, he stated that he isn't cold hearted in his original post. That is why I said what I did. The article wasn't some economics view into this topic, it was a look at the people. You shouldn't be looking at people struggling as an economics problem. You should be looking at it from a humanitarian standpoint. You can talk about the economic issues all you want, but it comes down to the residents are the ones getting hurt. The people that took advantage of the situation in developing where they did are not getting hurt.

criddell 9y ago

If you don't like suburbs, you're really going to hate what self driving cars bring. Get ready for sprawl like you've never seen it before. I, for one, plan on moving further out of the city as soon as my car can drive itself. The dream isn't dying. It hasn't even started yet.

CalRobert 9y ago
sadly I want to think you're wrong but in reality every last remote place will be destroyed by them. Why live in walnut creek when you could commute from yosemite?
organsnyder 9y ago
I could see it going either way. I actually have become more likely to use transit since ride-hailing is so much easier—if I'm ever stranded anywhere (lack of good bus route, after hours, etc.), I just have to open the Lyft app. Furthermore, when car ownership is no longer considered a necessity (as it is today in most of the US), the economics will change. Right now, my personal vehicle is a sunk cost, so I view car trips as costing close to zero—unlike the up-front, immediate transactions inherent to taking the bus or Lyft. Once I no longer own that vehicle (I'm not planning to replace it), all of my options will be on more equal footing, since they'll all be priced per-trip. Even self-driving vehicles will not be able to compete with mass transit when they're both priced similarly.
- Retric 9y ago
  Exactly, owning a car in a city can easily cost 25+$/day. That buys a lot of public transportation.
  - lurr 9y ago
    But I get value beyond just point A-B travel out of that.
  - criddell 9y ago
    Self driving cars will eventually be much, much less expensive to own and operate than cards of today. That's assuming there isn't a massive per-mile tax imposed. I would also guess public transportation will evolve as well. I could see small and medium sized cities getting rid of buses, fixed schedules, and fixed routes and instead deploy a fleet of van-sized vehicles to pick up people on demand. I could see this as being something that gets outsourced to Uber and Lyft. Maybe it will be less expensive and better to just subsidize rides from private companies.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Mechanically, self driving cars are not going to be cheaper to build or maintain, and they will need just as much fuel if not significantly more to go park somewhere distant. You also need 2 parking spaces @ 100+$/month (one at home, one at the office) and pay to park other places. Insurance might get slightly cheaper, but I don't see the economics changing much and the added electronics are not going to be free.
      - organsnyder 9y ago
        You're assuming that the ownership model stays the same. Many people (myself included) are predicting that the convenience and low cost of autonomous ride-hailing services will make car ownership a frivolity, much like owning an additional non-daily-driver is today.
        9y ago
mbrumlow 9y ago
I did not mean to imply I don't like the suburbs. I was implying that too many we're built to quickly with the expectation that the economy was going to be different or that it could sustain these new build outs. Maybe self driving cars will help. But I see that being a thing for those who can already afford to live in the city. These people are going to likely prefer new stock over run down hoods.
jzymbaluk 9y ago
That's one side of the coin, but on the other hand I can also envision self-driving cars enabling more urban density. Presumably self-driving cars don't really need to be parked on-site at the destination and could instead drop off their rider at the destination and park in some centralized parking garage. The car could even make money for its owner by being an automated uber driver while the owner is working or shopping or whatever. American cities give up a lot of space to parking lots, it'd be great to be able to reclaim some of it
- astura 9y ago
  I heard an estimate that something like 25% of traffic in some areas at a given time are just people driving around looking for a parking spot. That's just nuts! It really remains to be seen what self driving cars would do to traffic.
  - criddell 9y ago
    In the future, the car will just circle the block while you shop.
    - azemetre 9y ago
      Sounds like an immense waste of energy, energy that can be better utilized. The more I hear about self driving cars the more I wish the US government would take investment into public transportation seriously.
lurr 9y ago
Yup, and self driving cars full of one person each who is taking a nap on their longer commute.
JauntTrooper 9y ago
Totally! Get in the car, kick back, take a nap, finish some work, do some video calls, watch some TV... long commutes will be so much more tolerable.

parzivalm 9y ago

It sounds like a lot of the people living there aren't holding on to a dying dream but are stuck. It isn't the residents fault that what happened did. Frankly you sure come off as cold hearted. You are talking about a problem affecting many people as nothing more than a mistake that we should just let die basically.

throwawayjava 9y ago
> You are talking about a problem affecting many people as nothing more than a mistake that we should just let die basically. But what if parent's premise is correct? What if these areas cannot support a local economy that justified the rapid build-out? What if these areas will never be able to support that? Sometimes the truth is hard. That doesn't make the truth-bearer "cold-hearted". Indeed, sticking our heads in the sand seems even worse, from a moral perspective.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
gshulegaard 9y ago
Funny, I read his comment through a critical Economic lens and find myself in agreement. Capitalism is cold hearted (to use your wording)...there is no accounting for ethics in Supply and Demand models. This fact is an underlying foundation for many regulatory bodies. For example the EPA establishes and enforces environmental rules in the best interest of society as a whole rather than allow companies to pollute ad nauseam which would be in their individual bottom line's best interest. This type of regulation is meant to correct factors outside of market actors which lead to an equilibrium that is sub-optimal for society. You might say he sounds cold hearted, but that is unfairly judging an individual ethically for the speculation of an economic reality which has no ethicality.
- parzivalm 9y ago
  To be fair, he stated that he isn't cold hearted in his original post. That is why I said what I did. The article wasn't some economics view into this topic, it was a look at the people. You shouldn't be looking at people struggling as an economics problem. You should be looking at it from a humanitarian standpoint. You can talk about the economic issues all you want, but it comes down to the residents are the ones getting hurt. The people that took advantage of the situation in developing where they did are not getting hurt.