3 ms·

I don't know if "great" is the right word since robotaxis not only don't fix the problems you list, they make them unlikely to ever get fixed. It would be bett

I don't know if "great" is the right word since robotaxis not only don't fix the problems you list, they make them unlikely to ever get fixed. It would be better for your elderly parents (and everyone else) if instead of putting our energy into adapting to robotaxis, we made cities more walkable and invested in public transportation.

AlotOfReading 3y ago
I don't see why we can't have both? Neither Waymo/Cruise nor the CPUC have any control over the urban design process. The CPUC does have some level of control over BART and other transit agencies, but they're still not the right agency to be dictating service levels. Investing in building better cities is the government's job. Sabotaging commercial services so that things get bad enough that the government is forced to act is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
- bluefishinit 3y ago
  > I don't see why we can't have both? Because you still need roads for robotaxis. Urban centers should be pedestrian only zones augmented with light rail. We need to stop looking at any form of car as a solution, they only exacerbate the problem since they require roads.
  - AlotOfReading 3y ago
    Even Dutch cities like Amsterdam and Utrecht don't ban taxis and other commercial vehicles from the city center because they serve a useful purpose in a tourist city, so I'm not sure why SF would have to. There's a huge amount of possibility-space between "everything is designed exclusively for cars" and "replace all roads with light rail".
  - justsomehnguy 3y ago
    > Urban centers should be pedestrian only zones augmented with light rail. Define 'urban center' then. 2km x 2km would be the biggest practical patch w/o vehicular access except emergency services. 10km x 10km? No way.
senttoschool 3y ago
>I don't know if "great" is the right word since robotaxis not only don't fix the problems you list, they make them unlikely to ever get fixed. Not worried about that. I need to worry about how my elderly parents can get around now/very soon and not how the US can re-engineer its cities to fix the problems I listed.

AlotOfReading 3y ago

I don't see why we can't have both? Neither Waymo/Cruise nor the CPUC have any control over the urban design process. The CPUC does have some level of control over BART and other transit agencies, but they're still not the right agency to be dictating service levels. Investing in building better cities is the government's job. Sabotaging commercial services so that things get bad enough that the government is forced to act is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

bluefishinit 3y ago
> I don't see why we can't have both? Because you still need roads for robotaxis. Urban centers should be pedestrian only zones augmented with light rail. We need to stop looking at any form of car as a solution, they only exacerbate the problem since they require roads.
- AlotOfReading 3y ago
  Even Dutch cities like Amsterdam and Utrecht don't ban taxis and other commercial vehicles from the city center because they serve a useful purpose in a tourist city, so I'm not sure why SF would have to. There's a huge amount of possibility-space between "everything is designed exclusively for cars" and "replace all roads with light rail".
- justsomehnguy 3y ago
  > Urban centers should be pedestrian only zones augmented with light rail. Define 'urban center' then. 2km x 2km would be the biggest practical patch w/o vehicular access except emergency services. 10km x 10km? No way.

senttoschool 3y ago

>I don't know if "great" is the right word since robotaxis not only don't fix the problems you list, they make them unlikely to ever get fixed. Not worried about that. I need to worry about how my elderly parents can get around now/very soon and not how the US can re-engineer its cities to fix the problems I listed.