4 ms·

You'd have a fleet of driverless cars driving around the city and summon one with an app. With no drivers they would only need to stop to recharge/refuel and fo

by imgabe 3y ago

You'd have a fleet of driverless cars driving around the city and summon one with an app. With no drivers they would only need to stop to recharge/refuel and for maintenance. If you can automate a car, you can automate a handicap accessible van. Just because they haven't yet doesn't mean they wouldn't. Public transit is great, but it means you have to go to a specific stop and wait there, and then go from wherever you get dropped off to your final destination, which is probably not the bus stop / train station. That's not very handicap-accessible, since it often means navigating escalators / elevators that end up being broken half the time.

ornornor 3y ago
These cars would be privately owned and follow the whims of shareholders. We all know how well that goes. These issues with public transit are correctable. Stops could be added in between, infrastructure made more accessible… Handicap accessibility is a mandate for public transit. For a private car fleet, it’s an afterthought and token gesture. Also, the public transit network is already there and works. Why not invest in that instead while also encouraging active Mobility by walking or cycling instead of more cars? I still fail to see how what they’re demanding is idiotic. You might not agree with it, or it might make you uncomfortable about your transportation choices, but it’s the opposite of idiotic.
- imgabe 3y ago
  What is stopping the city from buying and operating driverless cars? Their money is just as good and I'm sure the companies selling the cars would be happy to sell to them. Oh, the only thing stopping them are "activists" who demand inferior solutions to transit. The public transit network is "there" in some places, and kind of works. If you happen to live near a stop and your schedule allows you enough time to wait for a bus / train to arrive, then sure. If you don't live in one of those places then you're SOL. Good luck waiting for the city to add a new train line. It took NYC over 100 years to build the second avenue line... Meanwhile the infrastructure for cars is there, and actually does work and goes from point-to-point from almost every single residence / place of business in the entire country.
  - abenga 3y ago
    > What's stopping the city from buying and operating driverless cars? Cost and inefficiency? The city should invest in and expand access to efficient public transit, not spend money on expensive multi-ton vehicles that can move one fare at a time. The solution to "some people live far from bus stops" should first be "local government adds more bus stops", not "local government spends billions on small cars."
    - lotsoweiners 3y ago
      There is no way that a city could have enough bus stops and routes to service most sprawling American cities. This is especially true when you consider that a sizable portion of the population wouldn’t be caught dead on a bus. Building more routes and stops might work in dense cities but is not a one size fits all solution.
      - ornornor 3y ago
        > a sizable portion of the population wouldn’t be caught dead on a bus. Yep that’s another part of the problem. Easy answer is for official to through their hands up and make way for more individual cars rather than addressing the root problem and do the hard work of making public transit attractive. I’m in Switzerland at the moment for example, a large chunk of people don’t own cars, you can go by train and bus everywhere (literally, I can go across the country on one ticket, go to ski by train, or to the top of mountains by train and mountain trains), and the bus isn’t the social stigma it is in the US. There is no reason why the Us can’t get their act together and do the same thing other than lack of will to do so. Instead, you have multilevel 12 lanes freeway monstrosities and insane traffic.
        lsaferite 3y ago
        Spoken like someone that lives in a high-density area. Switzerland is 223 per Km2 while the US is 37 per Km2. In the EU, only Finland, Sweden, Latvia, and Estonia have a lower population density. There average across the EU is 109.56 per Km2. GB is 280 per Km2. Solutions to transportation in the US need to factor in the density and account for the low-density areas as well. Politically, those low-density regions are, IME, the ones most likely to fight against changes that would move towards mass-transit because they feel like they are being ignored. Beyond that, SDVs and Mass-transit aren't at opposition. Busses can and should be SDVs as well. As mentioned by another poster, small handicap-accessible SDVs that do point-to-point transport are _better_ than mass-transit. If vehicular mass is a concern, with ubiquitous SDV integration into an urban transit system you can and should design purpose-built transporters with lower mass. With central EV charging and remote power generation you are already moving the pollution point to a smaller number of locations that are easier to optimize and monitor. Really, these people seem to be saying "We don't like this, so you shouldn't be allowed to do it" and then they use flimsy excuses as justification. That makes them just like all the other people that want to force their world-view on me. Maybe instead of doing that they could spend all of that energy on moving the needle on the core issues that are possible in the short term and will make a difference, like moving to green renewables for power generation. Sorry if this seems overly cranky, but it's frustrating to see people that think interfering with SDV operation is a 'good thing' in any way, shape, or form.
- badpun 3y ago
  > These cars would be privately owned and follow the whims of shareholders. We all know how well that goes. The state can easily legislate that fleets of self-driving cars needs to have x% of their cars be wheelchair-accessible, just as it has legislated that the newly built buildings (public or private) need to be wheelchair accessible.
  - ornornor 3y ago
    The state could also mandate more public transit and more stops. Yet here we are.
    - lsaferite 3y ago
      If it were simply "add more stops" or "add more trains/busses", then it would have been done a long time ago. The calculus there is much more complex and you are hand-waving away those issues.
- lotsoweiners 3y ago
  > Also, the public transit network is already there and works. Why not invest in that instead while also encouraging active Mobility by walking or cycling instead of more cars? I have no idea where the nearest bus stop to my house is but I’m guessing it is over a half mile away. According to my Apple Watch it is supposed to be 110 degrees outside today. Does that help clarify why people might want door to door service if they were getting a ride whether public transportation or taxi?
  - ornornor 3y ago
    It’s hard to overlook the irony. It is so warm partly because we’ve been pushing polluting convenience over a little extra effort with less pollution. You should be agitating your government to make public transit an attractive alternative (because walking half a mile to the public bus stop in 43C weather is absolutely unreasonable). As long as public transit in the US is so crappy and unattractive, it’s a slam dunk for building more car infrastructure and exacerbate the problems further.
- frumper 3y ago
  The privately owned car owners that offer a public good without following ADA will get sued. It should even be relatively easy to find the owner through the license plate.
pharmakom 3y ago
> You'd have a fleet of driverless cars driving around the city and summon one with an app. With no drivers they would only need to stop to recharge/refuel and for maintenance. Yep, and so the city will be flooded with cars.

by imgabe 3y ago

ornornor 3y ago

These cars would be privately owned and follow the whims of shareholders. We all know how well that goes. These issues with public transit are correctable. Stops could be added in between, infrastructure made more accessible… Handicap accessibility is a mandate for public transit. For a private car fleet, it’s an afterthought and token gesture. Also, the public transit network is already there and works. Why not invest in that instead while also encouraging active Mobility by walking or cycling instead of more cars? I still fail to see how what they’re demanding is idiotic. You might not agree with it, or it might make you uncomfortable about your transportation choices, but it’s the opposite of idiotic.

imgabe 3y ago
What is stopping the city from buying and operating driverless cars? Their money is just as good and I'm sure the companies selling the cars would be happy to sell to them. Oh, the only thing stopping them are "activists" who demand inferior solutions to transit. The public transit network is "there" in some places, and kind of works. If you happen to live near a stop and your schedule allows you enough time to wait for a bus / train to arrive, then sure. If you don't live in one of those places then you're SOL. Good luck waiting for the city to add a new train line. It took NYC over 100 years to build the second avenue line... Meanwhile the infrastructure for cars is there, and actually does work and goes from point-to-point from almost every single residence / place of business in the entire country.
- abenga 3y ago
  > What's stopping the city from buying and operating driverless cars? Cost and inefficiency? The city should invest in and expand access to efficient public transit, not spend money on expensive multi-ton vehicles that can move one fare at a time. The solution to "some people live far from bus stops" should first be "local government adds more bus stops", not "local government spends billions on small cars."
  - lotsoweiners 3y ago
    There is no way that a city could have enough bus stops and routes to service most sprawling American cities. This is especially true when you consider that a sizable portion of the population wouldn’t be caught dead on a bus. Building more routes and stops might work in dense cities but is not a one size fits all solution.
    - ornornor 3y ago
      > a sizable portion of the population wouldn’t be caught dead on a bus. Yep that’s another part of the problem. Easy answer is for official to through their hands up and make way for more individual cars rather than addressing the root problem and do the hard work of making public transit attractive. I’m in Switzerland at the moment for example, a large chunk of people don’t own cars, you can go by train and bus everywhere (literally, I can go across the country on one ticket, go to ski by train, or to the top of mountains by train and mountain trains), and the bus isn’t the social stigma it is in the US. There is no reason why the Us can’t get their act together and do the same thing other than lack of will to do so. Instead, you have multilevel 12 lanes freeway monstrosities and insane traffic.
      - lsaferite 3y ago
        Spoken like someone that lives in a high-density area. Switzerland is 223 per Km2 while the US is 37 per Km2. In the EU, only Finland, Sweden, Latvia, and Estonia have a lower population density. There average across the EU is 109.56 per Km2. GB is 280 per Km2. Solutions to transportation in the US need to factor in the density and account for the low-density areas as well. Politically, those low-density regions are, IME, the ones most likely to fight against changes that would move towards mass-transit because they feel like they are being ignored. Beyond that, SDVs and Mass-transit aren't at opposition. Busses can and should be SDVs as well. As mentioned by another poster, small handicap-accessible SDVs that do point-to-point transport are _better_ than mass-transit. If vehicular mass is a concern, with ubiquitous SDV integration into an urban transit system you can and should design purpose-built transporters with lower mass. With central EV charging and remote power generation you are already moving the pollution point to a smaller number of locations that are easier to optimize and monitor. Really, these people seem to be saying "We don't like this, so you shouldn't be allowed to do it" and then they use flimsy excuses as justification. That makes them just like all the other people that want to force their world-view on me. Maybe instead of doing that they could spend all of that energy on moving the needle on the core issues that are possible in the short term and will make a difference, like moving to green renewables for power generation. Sorry if this seems overly cranky, but it's frustrating to see people that think interfering with SDV operation is a 'good thing' in any way, shape, or form.
badpun 3y ago
> These cars would be privately owned and follow the whims of shareholders. We all know how well that goes. The state can easily legislate that fleets of self-driving cars needs to have x% of their cars be wheelchair-accessible, just as it has legislated that the newly built buildings (public or private) need to be wheelchair accessible.
- ornornor 3y ago
  The state could also mandate more public transit and more stops. Yet here we are.
  - lsaferite 3y ago
    If it were simply "add more stops" or "add more trains/busses", then it would have been done a long time ago. The calculus there is much more complex and you are hand-waving away those issues.
lotsoweiners 3y ago
> Also, the public transit network is already there and works. Why not invest in that instead while also encouraging active Mobility by walking or cycling instead of more cars? I have no idea where the nearest bus stop to my house is but I’m guessing it is over a half mile away. According to my Apple Watch it is supposed to be 110 degrees outside today. Does that help clarify why people might want door to door service if they were getting a ride whether public transportation or taxi?
- ornornor 3y ago
  It’s hard to overlook the irony. It is so warm partly because we’ve been pushing polluting convenience over a little extra effort with less pollution. You should be agitating your government to make public transit an attractive alternative (because walking half a mile to the public bus stop in 43C weather is absolutely unreasonable). As long as public transit in the US is so crappy and unattractive, it’s a slam dunk for building more car infrastructure and exacerbate the problems further.
frumper 3y ago
The privately owned car owners that offer a public good without following ADA will get sued. It should even be relatively easy to find the owner through the license plate.

pharmakom 3y ago

> You'd have a fleet of driverless cars driving around the city and summon one with an app. With no drivers they would only need to stop to recharge/refuel and for maintenance. Yep, and so the city will be flooded with cars.