5 ms·

> A few days ago, i saw this article in SF Chronicle; a joint opinion piece from MIT professor Carlo Ratti: "Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robot

> A few days ago, i saw this article in SF Chronicle; a joint opinion piece from MIT professor Carlo Ratti: "Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse" https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/robota https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/robota... The basic gist was, convenience of ride-sharing / seduced us into over using cars. It was supposed to have the opposite effect "...ride-hailing and ride-sharing could make our streets cleaner and more efficient. ... With minimal delays to passengers, we could match riders and reduce the size of New York City taxi fleets by 40%. More people could get around in fewer cars for less money. We could reduce car ownership, and free up curbs and parking lots for new uses" but ... they did not take into account changes in human behavior. People stopped walking, using bicycles, etc... "On average, ride-hailing trips generated far more traffic and 69% more carbon dioxide than the trips they displaced." I think this is what will happen with these drone delivery services. As it becomes easier to order a box of bandaids and have it delivered in 4 minutes, people will change their behavior, we will be ordering more frequently one-off things from Walmart several times a week, and the sky will be filled with drones... and it will be hell. People have a right to convenience and a better quality of life. Urban planners have a similarly flawed argument — tearing down highways will reduce traffic because everyone will take public transport. It merely forces the lower class and poor to suffer through public transit. The upper middle class, and similarly the tenured academics and policy wonks who came up with this sort of nonsensical arguments, never have to suffer the consequences of their own policies. It is a great thing in America that everyone can easily buy a car and enjoy the freedom. If cities want better traffic, then spend more money renovating or widening roads, not forcing poor people into crowded and uncomfortable public transport.

gotimo 3y ago
this is a better argument for improving public transport than it is for widening roads.
- latency-guy2 3y ago
  Sure, if you deliberately are obtuse and think what others are saying are "widen the roads". I don't wish to share my space/commute with drug addicts and literal human feces, I don't see why anyone in this world would prefer to do that, can you explain why since you prefer that?
  - thewakalix 3y ago
    GGP: > If cities want better traffic, spend more money renovating or widening roads...
  - michaelmrose 3y ago
    Why do you think tolerance of bad behavior is inevitable? In one system near me I've ridden I've ridden hundreds of times and seen one example of really bad behavior ever and the person was kicked off. In another in a big city they suffer from far more problems but even there most trips are trouble free. In this system the dominant method of payment is by using a RFID card one swipes. Credit cards are not accepted and few use cash as it stands. If you are poor the cards are free. One could strongly tie cards to identity, deprecate cash, and ban people who commit crimes on transit. Note if you don't have an ID you have a fingerprint. Oh looks like you were caught smoking fentanyl 3 times on the bus no ride for you. Refuse to get off get a free ride to jail and unpleasant detox. Most of the trouble is literally 0.001% of riders. It's not like most bus riders are offensive drug addicts.
  - happytiger 3y ago
    This isn’t how every place is. Where I live over 20 percent of trips are done by bike and public transportation is clean and works efficiently. You have a very skewed version of what things should look like. Travel more!
  - snakeboy 3y ago
    > I don't wish to share my space/commute with drug addicts and literal human feces, I don't see why anyone in this world would prefer to do that, can you explain why since you prefer that? If you spend an hour in literally any medium-sized European city you can see that public transport doesn't have to be like that given proper funding and a critical mass of ridership.
tcmb 3y ago
> People have a right to convenience and a better quality of life. That's a pretty bold statement. Where is this right stated, and who guarantees it? Who do I go to if I feel my convenience and QoL isn't high enough? Is this an absolute right that is realized at all costs? Even if my convenience affects the health and safety of others?
acchow 3y ago
> If cities want better traffic, then spend more money renovating or widening roads Widening roads just induces more driving. https://twitter.com/alanthefisher/status/1491148250543386625 https://twitter.com/alanthefisher/status/1491148250543386625
nonrandomstring 3y ago
[flagged]

gotimo 3y ago

this is a better argument for improving public transport than it is for widening roads.

latency-guy2 3y ago
Sure, if you deliberately are obtuse and think what others are saying are "widen the roads". I don't wish to share my space/commute with drug addicts and literal human feces, I don't see why anyone in this world would prefer to do that, can you explain why since you prefer that?
- thewakalix 3y ago
  GGP: > If cities want better traffic, spend more money renovating or widening roads...
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  Why do you think tolerance of bad behavior is inevitable? In one system near me I've ridden I've ridden hundreds of times and seen one example of really bad behavior ever and the person was kicked off. In another in a big city they suffer from far more problems but even there most trips are trouble free. In this system the dominant method of payment is by using a RFID card one swipes. Credit cards are not accepted and few use cash as it stands. If you are poor the cards are free. One could strongly tie cards to identity, deprecate cash, and ban people who commit crimes on transit. Note if you don't have an ID you have a fingerprint. Oh looks like you were caught smoking fentanyl 3 times on the bus no ride for you. Refuse to get off get a free ride to jail and unpleasant detox. Most of the trouble is literally 0.001% of riders. It's not like most bus riders are offensive drug addicts.
- happytiger 3y ago
  This isn’t how every place is. Where I live over 20 percent of trips are done by bike and public transportation is clean and works efficiently. You have a very skewed version of what things should look like. Travel more!
- snakeboy 3y ago
  > I don't wish to share my space/commute with drug addicts and literal human feces, I don't see why anyone in this world would prefer to do that, can you explain why since you prefer that? If you spend an hour in literally any medium-sized European city you can see that public transport doesn't have to be like that given proper funding and a critical mass of ridership.

tcmb 3y ago

> People have a right to convenience and a better quality of life. That's a pretty bold statement. Where is this right stated, and who guarantees it? Who do I go to if I feel my convenience and QoL isn't high enough? Is this an absolute right that is realized at all costs? Even if my convenience affects the health and safety of others?

acchow 3y ago

> If cities want better traffic, then spend more money renovating or widening roads Widening roads just induces more driving. https://twitter.com/alanthefisher/status/1491148250543386625 https://twitter.com/alanthefisher/status/1491148250543386625

nonrandomstring 3y ago

[flagged]