3 ms·

A hopefully not-too-annoying reminder that this isn’t a future that is sustainable or desirable to live in compared with alternatives. It’s really just better t

by dangus 4y ago

A hopefully not-too-annoying reminder that this isn’t a future that is sustainable or desirable to live in compared with alternatives. It’s really just better than the automotive hellscape you are used to. Phoenix is one of the most car-centric places to live in the country. The only reason anyone needs a service like this is because of the area’s complete failure in urban planning. Car-focused infrastructure is incredibly expensive per capita compared to alternatives that prioritizing walking, cycling, and public transit. It maximizes the amount of public utilities (roads, sewers, etc) needed to serve one family. One pair of train tracks can serve more human commuters than a 12-lane highway. One bus can replace 30-40 cars, and neither option needs fancy automation to be more cost and carbon efficient than a robotaxi. Waymo might band-aid the transit situation where you live but it’s doing nothing to address the fundamental problems with large urban areas that require the use of personal vehicles.

xnx 4y ago
A future with all autonomous vehicles is about the best transportation future I can imagine! Go directly point-to-point in private transportation quickly, quietly, safely and efficiently. In a fully-autonomous future, infrastructure needs are dramatically reduced: no parking, fewer lanes of traffic, minimal road surface (could even just be 2 "rails" of pavement for the tires). Fully-autonomous vehicles could also reduce domestic flights dramatically (and all the associated fuel consumption and noise).
rufus_foreman 4y ago
>> The only reason anyone needs a service like this is because of the area’s complete failure in urban planning By the criteria I would use, Phoenix is a massive success in urban planning. The criteria I would use would be the willingness of people to move there. In 1950, Phoenix was in the top 100 biggest US cities...barely. It was 99th, with a little over 100,000 people. NYC was the largest, with around 8 million. In 2000, Phoenix was the 6th largest city in the US with 1.3 million people. NYC was the largest, with around 8 million. In 2022, Phoenix was the 5th largest city in the US with 1.6 million people. NYC was the largest, with around 8.5 million. And NYC has been losing population for the last few years. The people who moved to Phoenix didn't have guns to their heads. They moved there because out of all the cities in the US, Phoenix worked best for them. To me that points to an incredible urban planning success. They might have failed at building a city that you like. They might have failed at building a city that was hostile to people who want a single family home with a two car garage. But they didn't fail at building a city that people choose to move to.
elbigbad 4y ago
What you’re saying is probably true, but are you proposing razing Phoenix and rebuilding it as a less car-focused place? My sense is that that proposal wouldn’t be too popular with the people whose homes you’re tearing down, nor would necessarily the change in lifestyle they would be forced to undergo (after I’m sure what would be decades of rebuilding…).
- dangus 4y ago
  Considering the fact that the Phoenix area is rapidly growing, I would propose that new development focuses on transit oriented design, smarter zoning, and improved land use. It would even benefit municipalities financially to discourage unproductive land use that don’t drive tax revenue, like parking lots. When we talk about razing and rebuilding, it’s notable that this has already happened in our history. That’s how we have interstate highways cutting through urban areas and the destruction of the passenger rail network which was effectively razed and replaced by highways. Many big box stores and parking lots replace buildings that were destroyed (see before and after photos of downtown Houston, for example). Most American cities outside of the coasts wouldn’t even exist without a railroad network that largely no longer exists. These are all conscious choices and there’s no such thing as being stuck with cars-only infrastructure forever. The defeatism of saying that we are stuck with cars-only is a lie. After all, interstates regularly need billions of dollars of periodic investment just to keep them functional. Many states continually decide to do things like add lanes and enhanced interchanges at eye-watering costs that aren’t too dissimilar from the cost of adding new rail service. For example, what if instead of spending $20 Billion in today’s dollars on the big dig in Boston, the elevated highway was simply demolished and the rest of the insane costs that were sunk into an underground highway went into expanding the commuter rail network and making a better rail connection to Logan airport (the blue line already nearly goes there with a short airport bus transfer, which could be further improved). That would reduce traffic in downtown Boston rather than expanding traffic by adding lanes and making driving more attractive than alternatives. This is already one of America’s most walkable cities but the highway was moved underground rather than removed. $20 billion is so much money that entire new commuter rail lines could have been built for that price.
- lovemenot 4y ago

by dangus 4y ago

xnx 4y ago

A future with all autonomous vehicles is about the best transportation future I can imagine! Go directly point-to-point in private transportation quickly, quietly, safely and efficiently. In a fully-autonomous future, infrastructure needs are dramatically reduced: no parking, fewer lanes of traffic, minimal road surface (could even just be 2 "rails" of pavement for the tires). Fully-autonomous vehicles could also reduce domestic flights dramatically (and all the associated fuel consumption and noise).

rufus_foreman 4y ago

>> The only reason anyone needs a service like this is because of the area’s complete failure in urban planning By the criteria I would use, Phoenix is a massive success in urban planning. The criteria I would use would be the willingness of people to move there. In 1950, Phoenix was in the top 100 biggest US cities...barely. It was 99th, with a little over 100,000 people. NYC was the largest, with around 8 million. In 2000, Phoenix was the 6th largest city in the US with 1.3 million people. NYC was the largest, with around 8 million. In 2022, Phoenix was the 5th largest city in the US with 1.6 million people. NYC was the largest, with around 8.5 million. And NYC has been losing population for the last few years. The people who moved to Phoenix didn't have guns to their heads. They moved there because out of all the cities in the US, Phoenix worked best for them. To me that points to an incredible urban planning success. They might have failed at building a city that you like. They might have failed at building a city that was hostile to people who want a single family home with a two car garage. But they didn't fail at building a city that people choose to move to.

elbigbad 4y ago

What you’re saying is probably true, but are you proposing razing Phoenix and rebuilding it as a less car-focused place? My sense is that that proposal wouldn’t be too popular with the people whose homes you’re tearing down, nor would necessarily the change in lifestyle they would be forced to undergo (after I’m sure what would be decades of rebuilding…).

dangus 4y ago
Considering the fact that the Phoenix area is rapidly growing, I would propose that new development focuses on transit oriented design, smarter zoning, and improved land use. It would even benefit municipalities financially to discourage unproductive land use that don’t drive tax revenue, like parking lots. When we talk about razing and rebuilding, it’s notable that this has already happened in our history. That’s how we have interstate highways cutting through urban areas and the destruction of the passenger rail network which was effectively razed and replaced by highways. Many big box stores and parking lots replace buildings that were destroyed (see before and after photos of downtown Houston, for example). Most American cities outside of the coasts wouldn’t even exist without a railroad network that largely no longer exists. These are all conscious choices and there’s no such thing as being stuck with cars-only infrastructure forever. The defeatism of saying that we are stuck with cars-only is a lie. After all, interstates regularly need billions of dollars of periodic investment just to keep them functional. Many states continually decide to do things like add lanes and enhanced interchanges at eye-watering costs that aren’t too dissimilar from the cost of adding new rail service. For example, what if instead of spending $20 Billion in today’s dollars on the big dig in Boston, the elevated highway was simply demolished and the rest of the insane costs that were sunk into an underground highway went into expanding the commuter rail network and making a better rail connection to Logan airport (the blue line already nearly goes there with a short airport bus transfer, which could be further improved). That would reduce traffic in downtown Boston rather than expanding traffic by adding lanes and making driving more attractive than alternatives. This is already one of America’s most walkable cities but the highway was moved underground rather than removed. $20 billion is so much money that entire new commuter rail lines could have been built for that price.
lovemenot 4y ago