2 ms·

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 o

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.