23 ms·
I hate seeing this premise. It is railfan navelgazing. I like rails and ride them frequently. Rails are not the future for passenger commuting, outside of the m
by syntheweave 4y ago
I hate seeing this premise. It is railfan navelgazing. I like rails and ride them frequently. Rails are not the future for passenger commuting, outside of the middle-long distances that heavy rails serve.
What AV addresses is primarily a last-mile problem. Last mile is all about the personal transport solution, and cars are just the largest of those. The physics and geometry of cars means that they are more expensive because they are literally more mass being moved around. Bikes and scooters have become much better personal transport recently because they now have electric assist options, and so are more accessible for more situations and capable of pulling heavy loads. So the problems of cars are already being addressed from one end; bike-friendly infrastructure is lagging behind in much of the world, but it's also one of the cheapest changes you can make to a road, and far cheaper than adding a new metro stop.
Once AV is adopted, the physical economics remain the same, but the economics of rental change; you don't have to go where the fleet is, it shows up at the door. But that doesn't result in everyone riding a personal limo. Smaller is cheaper for personal transport in the last mile, and that does not change just because you replaced the driver. Cost reduction will take place in shared rental fleets. Cost reduction means cars get smaller, so car infrastructure can get smaller, so last-mile alternatives gain space, so transit gains space and ridership. AV is not in conflict with transit, rather, it redefines the bottlenecks of transit modalities. If you need a sit-down vehicle with a cabin for your trip, you still don't need additional empty seats - unless you pay a premium, you will be crammed into the lightest, smallest thing that is roadworthy. Only an enthusiast will bother with lugging a huge vehicle around town if you can rent that size on demand. That goes for the car and it goes for the train. You still want to have transit to cover longer distances along major corridors, but the effective coverage of all stops is bolstered if you can pick up a bike or scooter share at either end of the trip.
- salmonfamine 4y agoThere is no reason that self-driving will create a transit modality that is more conducive to smaller vehicles. That is an energy cost “problem.”
- maccam94 4y agoThe last mile is only a problem because people live in single-family housing zones, where there is not enough density for mass transit. We created this type of land use for several mostly not good reasons. Trains are far more efficient than car infrastructure. Why do commuters need a self driving car if there are trains that run by your block every 5 minutes, and get you to your office block in 10-20?
- grandmczeb 4y agoWhy stop there? Trains are only necessary because the density isn’t high enough to walk everywhere. We wouldn’t need them if everyone just lived in the cube[1]. [1] https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/03/7-3-billion-people-one-building.html https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/03/7-3-billion-people-one-buildi...
- incone123 4y agoI lived in a block next to a rail line. It was noisy and unpleasant.
- CamperBob2 4y agoSo, if we just rewire our entire society top-down to conform to your vision, your plan will totally work. Well, you know, we all want to change the world.
- spiderice 4y ago> The last mile is only a problem because people live in single-family housing zones Unfortunately when solving a problem you have to address reality and not some non-existent ideal. Self driving cars are a much more realistic solution than getting billions of people to move to an expensive city where they’ll have 5% as much space as they’re used to.