5 ms·

The fact that someone always makes this sort of comment when driverless cars come up is really weird to me. I've never owned a car, use public transit very reg

The fact that someone always makes this sort of comment when driverless cars come up is really weird to me. I've never owned a car, use public transit very regularly, and think the state of it in the US is pretty bad and underinvested in. However, that's due to a huge set of systemic factors (political, organizational, spatial, ...) which nobody seems to have made much progress on, and not for lack of trying. Yeah, it would be great if we all had amazing public transit instead of self-driving cars. But self-driving cars are making big advances, and transit isn't. In ten or twenty years, self-driving cars might be everywhere, and transit will probably be roughly as bad as it is today. That's why people are excited about one and not the other.

Swenrekcah 3y ago
It is because one of the go-to talking points for postponing and diffusing support for better transit is the promise of self driving cars that will somehow solve everything. It doesn’t make sense because the traffic jam problem with cars comes not from human drivers but the physics of the car itself, but it is a persistent talking point nevertheless.
- kortilla 3y ago
  No it’s not a go-to talking point. Better transit has been deprioritized even when self driving was a complete fantasy.
  - wffurr 3y ago
    I have seen plenty of examples of urban planners talking about The Future of Transport as if self driving cars will take over any day now. Meanwhile the actual future of transport, absent public investment in transit systems, is electric micromobility devices.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  I don't think this is true at all. There are at least 5 talking points that are much more common and frankly more persuasive than the promise of self driving cars. 1. Special interest group capture has made building public transit impossibly expensive. Waymo's entire $30B valuation wouldn't even fix NYC's subway and finish the 2nd ave expansion. 2. American's don't like public transit because it involves being in confined space with other people, and a variety of cultural factors make that more unpleasant than it is in other countries. There is no culture of shame here so people on public transit are commonly extremely annoying and there's no law enforcement in many large cities so you just have to deal with it. 3. Most americans live in suburbia where robust public transit just isn't possible. It can be improved but mostly that just means commuter rail which still requires using a car for everything other than commuting, and usually people drive to the commuter rail station anyway. 4. We already have all the road infrustrure needed for transportation 5. Even in the best of circumstances public transit is more of a hassle than just driving directly from point a to point b
  - Izkata 3y ago
    > It can be improved but mostly that just means commuter rail which still requires using a car for everything other than commuting, and usually people drive to the commuter rail station anyway. Fun fact / example: My hometown started as a logging town next to train tracks, but grew outwards in one direction, so the train is now off towards the edge of town and it would take most residents around an hour to walk there. Just about everyone who takes the train drives there and uses its parking lot.
  - Swenrekcah 3y ago
    I never said this was the only argument people made. But it is one of the strawmen/distractions that are commonly thrown up in at least some areas. To answer the bullet points you made: >1. Special interest group capture has made building public transit impossibly expensive. Waymo's entire $30B valuation wouldn't even fix NYC's subway and finish the 2nd ave expansion. Yes, a lot of public projects are allowed to be overblown in budgeting. This has many causes and they need to be addressed, but it is not a reason for halting all infrastructure improvement. It is simply a problem orthogonal to the one being discussed. But on the subject of cost, public transit can definitely be way cheaper than car ownership for the individual. (Yes I know fares are subsidized but so are roads and other car infrastructure, so that all needs to be balanced before claiming public transit is just the upstanding taxpayer paying for the poor and filthy). >2. American's don't like public transit because it involves being in confined space with other people, and a variety of cultural factors make that more unpleasant than it is in other countries. There is no culture of shame here so people on public transit are commonly extremely annoying and there's no law enforcement in many large cities so you just have to deal with it. That sounds like another problem that needs to be dealt with entirely separately, but there obviously are a lot of US cities with massively used public transport without there being more crime there than elsewhere in the city/region. >3. Most americans live in suburbia where robust public transit just isn't possible. It can be improved but mostly that just means commuter rail which still requires using a car for everything other than commuting, and usually people drive to the commuter rail station anyway. Even if they do, that still goes a long way towards solving the traffic jam problem, because it's the physics of the car itself that creates the jam. There just can not be enough cars on the road for everyone because there simply isn't space. Those that absolutely need or want to use it should be able to, and that is made easier when more people use transit. >4. We already have all the road infrustrure needed for transportation See point 3, no we don't. We can not because there isn't space for all the cars at the rush hour times. >5. Even in the best of circumstances public transit is more of a hassle than just driving directly from point a to point b That's perfectly fine. If I can save myself the cost of a car I am happy to walk a bit. Not all will make that cost/benefit calculation and that's fine too. But really, the exact time when it is a complete pain to drive (rush hour) is the time where good transit beats the car anytime, and also the exact time when every single transit passenger is one less car on the road, being in the way of all the other cars. Lastly, the micro-mobility devices of recent years really do solve the problem of this for many or most. It takes me very little time and is quite enjoyable, to rent a scooter in the morning to get to the best bus stop to get to work. When there I can walk to work or if I need to go further I rent another scooter. All this to say, good and robust public transit is a win-win for every person in the town/city. Except perhaps the car dealership owner. Edit: Oh, and I can't believe I forgot to mention, given this thread. The ultimate solution to the last-mile travel for longer distances is indeed self driving cars!
- Tycho 3y ago
  I wonder if fully automated traffic could be optimised to remove most congestion problems, if a system was able to coordinate the movements of the driverless vehicles. Theoretical maximum throughout may be much higher than typically realised.
sw104 3y ago
Where I live in Northern England, buses are (amongst other reasons) mostly hampered in their reliability by delays and cancellations caused by sharing roads congested with cars. Here there's an almost palpable attitude of disgust towards using the bus. Almost a me versus the plebs attitude. The car represents the people's private island. It would be slightly improved if people moved from tank-like SUVs to smaller cars, even better improved by embracing 1/2 seat cars (which will never happen because the design isn't conformist, see the Smart Car), and most improved by people putting their ego aside and taking the bus. For a country hitting 2/3 of adults being overweight and obese, it may be a perk that public transport doesn't provide A-to-B delivery and instead people get a 5 minute walk somewhere in their day. Instead it looks like self-driving cars will win out due to people's behaviour.
- a_humean 3y ago
  In London, which is a much denser city that any in Northern England, that attitude to buses and public transport is not shared. We have had a lot more sustained investment into reliable and affordable public transport. The lack of comparable investment in northern cities is of course not really the fault of the cities in question (London centric institutions, political culture, and voting base power).
  - jwhiles 3y ago
    In London I personally always try and cycle beucase I know that any bus I get is likely going to be slower because they are continually stuck in car traffic. Especially during rush hours. Annoyingly, the time when I would like to get public transport most is when it rains. And this is also when the public transport becomes slowest and least reliable.
- soco 3y ago
  So let me understand this: waiting stuck in traffic in your car (self-driving or not) is acceptable, but waiting stuck in traffic in a bus is not?
  - dagw 3y ago
bertil 3y ago
There’s progress because there’s investment. If dozens of billions were poured into public transport, it would improve dramatically. How can I be so so sure? Because that’s what a lot of countries have done, China first among many, and their public transport network has dramatically improved. The main issue is how much the private car industry avoids having to pay for the astounding externalities they generate: pollution, noise, road violence, global warming, microplastic, urban disruption… It’s orders of magnitude more expensive for people around drivers than for drivers.
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  It is strange that you chose China! Have you seen how many kilometers of urban freeways they built in the last 30 years? It is crazy. Look at the Beijing ring roads -- a traffic clogged hell space.
  - bertil 3y ago
    No, but I have you seen the Beijing metro: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Beijing+metro https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Beijing+metro and it sounds like it got a lot better than car transport during the same period.
  - wffurr 3y ago
    China has built out both while the US has let both crumble. The Netherlands also has both amazing public transit and amazing highways. The US would rather argue over slashing the already meager social safety net and buy some more fighter jets, nuclear aircraft carriers, and modernize the obsolete ICBM force than invest in infrastructure these days.
- kortilla 3y ago
  Dozens of billions are being poured in. That’s we got the California high speed rail connecting nowhere to nothing and BART just barely making it to San Jose. None of that still fixes the last mile problem of suburbia, and buses aren’t a solution. They are slow, too infrequent, and generally uncomfortable.
lynx23 3y ago
I suspect driverless cars get more perceived attention because switching cars over will actually make a lot more money then building up a public transport system. Its a bit like with washing machines or TV sets. Selling to each and every individual household or even citizen is going to be more lucrative then maintaining shared infrastructure.
- xnx 3y ago
  Public transit is extremely lucrative for engineering firms and politicians. A competitive autonomous-vehicle system would be a better value.

Swenrekcah 3y ago

It is because one of the go-to talking points for postponing and diffusing support for better transit is the promise of self driving cars that will somehow solve everything. It doesn’t make sense because the traffic jam problem with cars comes not from human drivers but the physics of the car itself, but it is a persistent talking point nevertheless.

kortilla 3y ago
No it’s not a go-to talking point. Better transit has been deprioritized even when self driving was a complete fantasy.
- wffurr 3y ago
  I have seen plenty of examples of urban planners talking about The Future of Transport as if self driving cars will take over any day now. Meanwhile the actual future of transport, absent public investment in transit systems, is electric micromobility devices.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
I don't think this is true at all. There are at least 5 talking points that are much more common and frankly more persuasive than the promise of self driving cars. 1. Special interest group capture has made building public transit impossibly expensive. Waymo's entire $30B valuation wouldn't even fix NYC's subway and finish the 2nd ave expansion. 2. American's don't like public transit because it involves being in confined space with other people, and a variety of cultural factors make that more unpleasant than it is in other countries. There is no culture of shame here so people on public transit are commonly extremely annoying and there's no law enforcement in many large cities so you just have to deal with it. 3. Most americans live in suburbia where robust public transit just isn't possible. It can be improved but mostly that just means commuter rail which still requires using a car for everything other than commuting, and usually people drive to the commuter rail station anyway. 4. We already have all the road infrustrure needed for transportation 5. Even in the best of circumstances public transit is more of a hassle than just driving directly from point a to point b
- Izkata 3y ago
  > It can be improved but mostly that just means commuter rail which still requires using a car for everything other than commuting, and usually people drive to the commuter rail station anyway. Fun fact / example: My hometown started as a logging town next to train tracks, but grew outwards in one direction, so the train is now off towards the edge of town and it would take most residents around an hour to walk there. Just about everyone who takes the train drives there and uses its parking lot.
- Swenrekcah 3y ago
  I never said this was the only argument people made. But it is one of the strawmen/distractions that are commonly thrown up in at least some areas. To answer the bullet points you made: >1. Special interest group capture has made building public transit impossibly expensive. Waymo's entire $30B valuation wouldn't even fix NYC's subway and finish the 2nd ave expansion. Yes, a lot of public projects are allowed to be overblown in budgeting. This has many causes and they need to be addressed, but it is not a reason for halting all infrastructure improvement. It is simply a problem orthogonal to the one being discussed. But on the subject of cost, public transit can definitely be way cheaper than car ownership for the individual. (Yes I know fares are subsidized but so are roads and other car infrastructure, so that all needs to be balanced before claiming public transit is just the upstanding taxpayer paying for the poor and filthy). >2. American's don't like public transit because it involves being in confined space with other people, and a variety of cultural factors make that more unpleasant than it is in other countries. There is no culture of shame here so people on public transit are commonly extremely annoying and there's no law enforcement in many large cities so you just have to deal with it. That sounds like another problem that needs to be dealt with entirely separately, but there obviously are a lot of US cities with massively used public transport without there being more crime there than elsewhere in the city/region. >3. Most americans live in suburbia where robust public transit just isn't possible. It can be improved but mostly that just means commuter rail which still requires using a car for everything other than commuting, and usually people drive to the commuter rail station anyway. Even if they do, that still goes a long way towards solving the traffic jam problem, because it's the physics of the car itself that creates the jam. There just can not be enough cars on the road for everyone because there simply isn't space. Those that absolutely need or want to use it should be able to, and that is made easier when more people use transit. >4. We already have all the road infrustrure needed for transportation See point 3, no we don't. We can not because there isn't space for all the cars at the rush hour times. >5. Even in the best of circumstances public transit is more of a hassle than just driving directly from point a to point b That's perfectly fine. If I can save myself the cost of a car I am happy to walk a bit. Not all will make that cost/benefit calculation and that's fine too. But really, the exact time when it is a complete pain to drive (rush hour) is the time where good transit beats the car anytime, and also the exact time when every single transit passenger is one less car on the road, being in the way of all the other cars. Lastly, the micro-mobility devices of recent years really do solve the problem of this for many or most. It takes me very little time and is quite enjoyable, to rent a scooter in the morning to get to the best bus stop to get to work. When there I can walk to work or if I need to go further I rent another scooter. All this to say, good and robust public transit is a win-win for every person in the town/city. Except perhaps the car dealership owner. Edit: Oh, and I can't believe I forgot to mention, given this thread. The ultimate solution to the last-mile travel for longer distances is indeed self driving cars!
Tycho 3y ago
I wonder if fully automated traffic could be optimised to remove most congestion problems, if a system was able to coordinate the movements of the driverless vehicles. Theoretical maximum throughout may be much higher than typically realised.

sw104 3y ago

Where I live in Northern England, buses are (amongst other reasons) mostly hampered in their reliability by delays and cancellations caused by sharing roads congested with cars. Here there's an almost palpable attitude of disgust towards using the bus. Almost a me versus the plebs attitude. The car represents the people's private island. It would be slightly improved if people moved from tank-like SUVs to smaller cars, even better improved by embracing 1/2 seat cars (which will never happen because the design isn't conformist, see the Smart Car), and most improved by people putting their ego aside and taking the bus. For a country hitting 2/3 of adults being overweight and obese, it may be a perk that public transport doesn't provide A-to-B delivery and instead people get a 5 minute walk somewhere in their day. Instead it looks like self-driving cars will win out due to people's behaviour.

a_humean 3y ago
In London, which is a much denser city that any in Northern England, that attitude to buses and public transport is not shared. We have had a lot more sustained investment into reliable and affordable public transport. The lack of comparable investment in northern cities is of course not really the fault of the cities in question (London centric institutions, political culture, and voting base power).
- jwhiles 3y ago
  In London I personally always try and cycle beucase I know that any bus I get is likely going to be slower because they are continually stuck in car traffic. Especially during rush hours. Annoyingly, the time when I would like to get public transport most is when it rains. And this is also when the public transport becomes slowest and least reliable.
soco 3y ago
So let me understand this: waiting stuck in traffic in your car (self-driving or not) is acceptable, but waiting stuck in traffic in a bus is not?
- dagw 3y ago

bertil 3y ago

There’s progress because there’s investment. If dozens of billions were poured into public transport, it would improve dramatically. How can I be so so sure? Because that’s what a lot of countries have done, China first among many, and their public transport network has dramatically improved. The main issue is how much the private car industry avoids having to pay for the astounding externalities they generate: pollution, noise, road violence, global warming, microplastic, urban disruption… It’s orders of magnitude more expensive for people around drivers than for drivers.

throwaway2037 3y ago
It is strange that you chose China! Have you seen how many kilometers of urban freeways they built in the last 30 years? It is crazy. Look at the Beijing ring roads -- a traffic clogged hell space.
- bertil 3y ago
  No, but I have you seen the Beijing metro: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Beijing+metro https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Beijing+metro and it sounds like it got a lot better than car transport during the same period.
- wffurr 3y ago
  China has built out both while the US has let both crumble. The Netherlands also has both amazing public transit and amazing highways. The US would rather argue over slashing the already meager social safety net and buy some more fighter jets, nuclear aircraft carriers, and modernize the obsolete ICBM force than invest in infrastructure these days.
kortilla 3y ago
Dozens of billions are being poured in. That’s we got the California high speed rail connecting nowhere to nothing and BART just barely making it to San Jose. None of that still fixes the last mile problem of suburbia, and buses aren’t a solution. They are slow, too infrequent, and generally uncomfortable.

lynx23 3y ago

I suspect driverless cars get more perceived attention because switching cars over will actually make a lot more money then building up a public transport system. Its a bit like with washing machines or TV sets. Selling to each and every individual household or even citizen is going to be more lucrative then maintaining shared infrastructure.

xnx 3y ago
Public transit is extremely lucrative for engineering firms and politicians. A competitive autonomous-vehicle system would be a better value.