4 ms·

That might be even better, but a single company can make self-driving cars without reforming the American suburban model. Practically, even in cities with exce

That might be even better, but a single company can make self-driving cars without reforming the American suburban model. Practically, even in cities with excellent commuter rail (e.g. Boston), car commuters still outnumber rail.

zamadatix 5y ago
It's not the suburban model that would need to be reformed, cars (self driving or not) are fine out there, it's about reforming using cars to get into and around cities. You don't need a train station 1,000ft from your house you just need rail fast enough to make it worth driving your car to the train station instead of driving it straight in. MTBA in Boston doesn't provide that as they aren't high speed, though they do have uniquely decent coverage for an American city. No matter how low effort you make the middle part of the journey it's not going to make much of a dent in the amount of traffic one has to deal with as there is no way to get enough cars through a city to meet the demand if it were quick and easy. Now if this were about full self driving start to finish I could buy it but just making the highway portion better doesn't really fix anything at scale except for long distance truckers and family vacations.
- tennien 5y ago
  That’s interesting: I’d think a 30min commute would be much better if the 20-25min could be spent disengaged.
  - zamadatix 5y ago
    So do I. I just don't think the portion outside of the disengaged part of the commute would stay the same. Same as every other time car commutes to cities were made easier so more cars came in slowing them back down to the point it's too inconvenient. "If anything this would probably increase car traffic delays as cities would become even more inundated with cars once you got off the highway." Even tripling car capacity wouldn't oversaturate induced demand which is why I say I'd take high speed rail which can actually oversaturate induced demand due to its speed and density. Or full self driving where there is no portion where you can waste time due to increased congestion.

zamadatix 5y ago

It's not the suburban model that would need to be reformed, cars (self driving or not) are fine out there, it's about reforming using cars to get into and around cities. You don't need a train station 1,000ft from your house you just need rail fast enough to make it worth driving your car to the train station instead of driving it straight in. MTBA in Boston doesn't provide that as they aren't high speed, though they do have uniquely decent coverage for an American city. No matter how low effort you make the middle part of the journey it's not going to make much of a dent in the amount of traffic one has to deal with as there is no way to get enough cars through a city to meet the demand if it were quick and easy. Now if this were about full self driving start to finish I could buy it but just making the highway portion better doesn't really fix anything at scale except for long distance truckers and family vacations.

tennien 5y ago
That’s interesting: I’d think a 30min commute would be much better if the 20-25min could be spent disengaged.
- zamadatix 5y ago
  So do I. I just don't think the portion outside of the disengaged part of the commute would stay the same. Same as every other time car commutes to cities were made easier so more cars came in slowing them back down to the point it's too inconvenient. "If anything this would probably increase car traffic delays as cities would become even more inundated with cars once you got off the highway." Even tripling car capacity wouldn't oversaturate induced demand which is why I say I'd take high speed rail which can actually oversaturate induced demand due to its speed and density. Or full self driving where there is no portion where you can waste time due to increased congestion.