6 ms·

There's plenty of truth in that article, but I can't help but think that this trend is almost purely a product of demographic changes. People wait longer to get

by learc83 15y ago

There's plenty of truth in that article, but I can't help but think that this trend is almost purely a product of demographic changes. People wait longer to get married and have children, so there way more 25-30 year olds who worry more about living within walking distance to a bar and less about a backyard and a nice school. Many of the urban Gen Y the article talks about will move back to the suburbs when they have children. A 1-2 bedroom apartment is fine for 2 people, but apartment living gets rather cramped when you have 4 or 5 people living there. Atlanta Public schools are pretty horrible, I can't imagine many of my friends who currently live in the city staying there when they have kids who are school age. Additionally the rise of the self driving car is going to completely torpedo 90% of the advantages of living in a city.

EricDeb 15y ago
I agree. As an "underdeveloped" (ie no impending plans to escape to the suburbs with a newly betrothed spouse) 22 year old I have no desire to be in the suburbs because they seem boring and lack the nightlife and women that currently interest me.
toyg 15y ago
The self-driving car will still need energy to run. Suburbs are built on the principle that energy is cheap. That is no longer the case.
- TheFuture 15y ago
  The self driving car will be much more energy efficient, especially if they can communicate with each other to optimize traffic flow
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    Improving traffic flow is a win, but only a small win. Lugging around the mass of the car and yourself is still by far and away the biggest energy cost of operating a car, not sitting at a stoplight or getting stuck in stop-and-go. Clearing up 1 mile of stop-and-go is not going to make up for the 9 miles from your house to the city streets on your 10-mile commute.
    - jerf 15y ago
      The self-driving car will (eventually) be only one part of a larger ecosystem. A scheduled trip on your rent-a-car share may well take you to a dynamically-scheduled bus that will aggregate many people's trips. Also, the car you call will be only as powerful as it needs to be, so you won't be routinely driving around in an SUV when all you need is an efficient sedan for a given trip. Electric cars work much better in this environment, because they can easily either go charge up or do battery exchange on a commercial-fleet scale instead of at a neighborhood gas station. Personally, I'm also pretty sure the net effect of self-driving cars will also be to spread out the suburbs even more too. Most people imagine self-driving cars that are still owned by you and have single-owner use patterns, but the economics of that don't work; in nothing flat owners start renting their car out during their off times, AirBnB style, and it's a short hop from there to simply providing cars as a service. Somebody is going to get very rich being the somebody who wins on the network effects and creates "the" transportation-as-a-service company. It's going to be an enormous change, and I find it unlikely it's going to play to the city's advantages in terms of people actually moving there.
    - nitrogen 15y ago
      But most of a car's energy is spent accelerating, with the rest spent fighting wind resistance. Improved traffic flow helps with both -- no stop and go means no energy wasted to braking, and automated car trains will allow cars to take turns drafting off one another for a significant reduction in drag. Notice that cars have markedly different highway vs. city mileage ratings. The old BMW I used to drive would get better than 26 (not great by today's standards) on an open freeway, but 17-18 in city traffic due to repeated acceleration and idling. Algorithmically optimized traffic flow would allow cars to spend more time in the highway range.
      - sliverstorm 15y ago
        On a freeway drive, I assure you, energy spent maintaining speed is the primary investment by great lengths. This is an over-generalization. Yes, city mileage is generally lower than highway, and yes, it is because of stop-and-go. But markedly different? My old car got 32 freeway, 29 city. My current car gets 27 freeway, 25 city. Cars with a large difference, like your BMW, suffer either from poor aerodynamics or engine configuration. (That is to say, the particular engine setup operates very inefficiently when accelerating from a stop) Now, the most damning evidence of all- the Prius gets 40 freeway, 44 city. Automating drafting is an interesting suggestion, but anecdotal evidence from hypermilers suggests that even when drafting close behind a big-rig, you typically only net a few percent. In addition, to get any kind of measurable improvements from drafting behind a regular car, you'd basically have to ride their bumper. It seems unlikely we will permit computers to try this any time soon. In the end, my point is not that improved traffic flow is worthless- it is a win in nearly every aspect- but that it is a small, incremental win. It is not going to reduce our energy consumption enough as to obviate our dependence on cheap energy, which ties back in to the earlier point this discussion spawned from: Suburbs are built on the principle that energy is cheap. That is no longer the case.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    You're using 2500 pounds of steel to carry a 200 pound human. Even if you assume 100% efficiency and power it with pixie dust that's too energy intensive. You're also using a 6 foot by 12 foot cage to convey that human being, which isn't scalable regardless of how much you optimize traffic flow. And that's if you're driving a Mini Cooper.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      Not sure what I said wrong here. If someone could explain so I can improve I'd appreciate it.
- learc83 15y ago
  Gas prices have gone up, but adjusted for inflation not outrageously so. http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasolin... Additionally gasoline isn't the only energy source. Once solar power reaches grid parity and electric cars are popular gas prices won't mean much. You're right that energy is finite and if we stay on the current energy consumption growth curve, energy will continue to get more expensive. However by that logic--extrapolating the decrease in time it takes me to run a mile each week--I'll be able to teleport in a few months. Population growth slows when a country becomes developed and at some point we will reach an equilibrium.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    Gas prices have gone up, but adjusted for inflation not outrageously so. But gas prices are themselves a big (maybe even the largest?) drivers of inflation, since they are not only counted themselves as they result in price raises for a lot of other products, like food.
    - learc83 15y ago
      You can look at gas prices as a percent of personal expenditures to see gasolines direct cost to the consumer. You'll see a similar curve. http://jerrykhachoyan.com/gas-expenditures-as-a-percent-of-pce/ http://jerrykhachoyan.com/gas-expenditures-as-a-percent-of-p... Yes other components of personal expenditure are affected by gas prices which affects the percentage, but when an individual is considering where to live the only component of gas price that matters is it's direct cost.
    - bodigital 15y ago
      You mean indicator of inflation. Inflation is the cause.
- sien 15y ago
  It is the case. Natural gas spot prices are at a low. http://mjperry.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/natural-gas-prices-fall-below-2-might.html http://mjperry.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/natural-gas-prices-fa... As fracking takes off globally they'll probably decline even further. Cars can run on natural gas. Many, perhaps even the majority of taxis do in Australia. When people get self-driving cars whatever is most economic, natural gas, petroleum or electric power will be used.
gte910h 15y ago
>Atlanta Public schools are pretty horrible What do you mean? APS mostly gets issues with disparity of performance (aka, the children of the rich people far outperform the children of everyone else). Sure, there are bad ones. But don't live there: http://www.atlantapublicschools.us/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&ModuleInstanceID=738&ViewID=047E6BE3-6D87-4130-8424-D8E4E9ED6C2A&RenderLoc=0&FlexDataID=26568&PageID=1 http://www.atlantapublicschools.us/site/default.aspx?PageTyp... This explains why you may think the schools are bad: http://midtown.patch.com/articles/grady-high-school-one-step-above-georgia-s-worst-performing-schools http://midtown.patch.com/articles/grady-high-school-one-step... RE Grady (and others): "Focus schools are either for graduation rates lower than 60% or achievement gaps in achievement or graduation rate between the highest performing subgroup and the lowest performing subgroup. They are on it because of the gap on graduation rate between their highest subgroup and their lowest subgroup." Basically, lots of child performance in school is based on who your parents are, not what your school does.
- learc83 15y ago
  I was mainly talking about things like the recent widespread systemic cheating. 44 out of 56 schools were cheating on the CRCT. Edit: by things like that, I mean an environment where that large a percentage of schools feel pressured to cheat. I'm aware that state and federal rules and standardized tests are responsible for some of the pressure, but none of the other school systems in the metro-atlanta area had such wide spread cheating even though they were under the same state and federal pressures. I'm going to say there is something wrong with the way the school district is ran if 44/56 schools are cheating.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - gte910h 15y ago
    It was shown in the governers report to be Barbra Hall and the principals doing the pressure. People who are quitting/being fired/etc right now. http://www.ajc.com/news/volume-1-of-special-1000798.html http://www.ajc.com/news/volume-1-of-special-1000798.html http://www.ajc.com/news/volume-2volume-2-of-special-1000571.html http://www.ajc.com/news/volume-2volume-2-of-special-1000571.... http://www.ajc.com/news/volume-3volume-3-conclusions-why-1000781.html http://www.ajc.com/news/volume-3volume-3-conclusions-why-100... It's actually a pretty interesting read, with testimony and specific allegations.
TheFuture 15y ago
EXACTLY. This notion that gen y is some sort of elightend urban dweller is ridiculous. Gen y is the most immature gen ever in American history. They treat college like a party, an excuse to extend childish behavior, and just throw the bill on some low interest student loans. No wonder they all rent, their credit is terrible. And then they don't get that 80k job handed to them, so they still work at Starbucks at 26yrs old with a BA in pyschology or poli sci, which they took because the classes were easy. I agree, its all about having kids and growing up. Once your children become your priority, your school district becomes important, and every major urban center in the USA has a school system somewhere between bad and god-awful. Watch the movies Waiting For Superman and The Cartel if you want to see what a mess that situation is. I don't see it getting resolved in the next 5-10 years, which is when gen y will start having kids.
- novalis 15y ago
  I am certain "having kids" is not a prerequisite for maturity. I know a lot of younger people that are from said gen y age and they aren't one group that can be defined by any of what you postulate. Projecting the errors of past generations on the adapting younger generations isn't very helpful in general. That is the sort of ego stroke that brought us to this point. One of many. Contact your legislators for any solve-all plan you have that will "fix" the costly inept educational system. As for your impositions or projections on others path through life, save them, it looks like they generate a lot of passive aggressiveness in you already.
- icebraining 15y ago
  Sorry, I downvoted you by mistake:|
- datasage 15y ago
  While I agree there are schools that are terrible, student success is not solely the responsibly of the school. A child that is in a stable home environment that values education and exploration can probably do just as much as a good school can. Now we tend to self segregate and choose to live in places with people like us. As professionals choose to live in cities instead of suburbs, schools around them will likely be better funded.
batista 15y ago
>Additionally the rise of the self driving car is going to completely torpedo 90% of the advantages of living in a city. The rise of what? We've seen some experimental designs, but I don't see the "rise" coming any time soon. Plus, the price of oil is more important factor --as for them "coordinating with other vehicles to increase efficiency" (as someone writes in a comment below), well, that seems marginal, especially since we are discussing driving OUTSIDE of the city.
- learc83 15y ago
  >but I don't see the "rise" coming any time soon. Nevada already implemented regulations to allow companies to test drive self driving cars on its roads, and all it will take for the rest of the nation to follow is for Google get California on board. The technology is already here. It's all about regulation and politics now, and there is so much money to made that it's just a question of when not if. If I can't buy a self-driving car in 10 years, I'm going to build my own.
  - _delirium 15y ago
    I've only seen tests on highways; afaik Google's car can't yet technologically manage the process of showing up to a random spot you want it to. For example, it can drive on 280, but it can't exit 280 into SF, navigate surface streets, and pull up to the curb where you're waiting.
    - drusenko 15y ago
      I don't think that's true. See this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html?page...): ---------- During a half-hour drive beginning on Google’s campus 35 miles south of San Francisco last Wednesday, a Prius equipped with a variety of sensors and following a route programmed into the GPS navigation system nimbly accelerated in the entrance lane and merged into fast-moving traffic on Highway 101, the freeway through Silicon Valley. It drove at the speed limit, which it knew because the limit for every road is included in its database, and left the freeway several exits later. The device atop the car produced a detailed map of the environment. The car then drove in city traffic through Mountain View, stopping for lights and stop signs, as well as making announcements like “approaching a crosswalk” (to warn the human at the wheel) or “turn ahead” in a pleasant female voice. This same pleasant voice would, engineers said, alert the driver if a master control system detected anything amiss with the various sensors. The car can be programmed for different driving personalities — from cautious, in which it is more likely to yield to another car, to aggressive, where it is more likely to go first. ---------- Also, the Wikipedia page indicates the same: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car
aboodman 15y ago
It isn't entirely the having to manually drive that people don't like about driving. It's also the time and cost to run, park, insure, maintain, etc. Driverless cars won't help most of this. No matter who is doing the driving, walking a few blocks is more convenient than driving a mile. And anyway, walking is more fun. I grew up in suburbs, and the article described my experience perfectly. I may someday move away from the urban core, but I don't forsee myself ever living more than a block or two from a few cafes and a market.
- learc83 15y ago
  >It's also the time and cost to run, park, insure, maintain, etc. Driverless cars won't help most of this. Driverless cars will help almost all of those. Think how much more viable zip cars would become if you didn't have to get to the car in the first place. If you could just call a car with a smartphone app and it would show up. Parking is a non issue because it drops you off at the door, and it can go park wherever is cheapest or just head off to another customer and you can call another one later. >walking a few blocks is more convenient than driving a mile. That's true if you live somewhere with a climate similar to Southern California, but there are plenty of places where I definitely do not want to walk a few blocks during most of the year.
  - gradstudent 15y ago
    >Driverless cars will help almost all of those. Think how much more viable zip cars would become if you didn't have to get to the car in the first place. If you could just call a car with a smartphone app and it would show up. Congratulations: You've just described taxi cabs.
    - noonespecial 15y ago
      Taxis are expensive and severely supply side limited. Interesting things happen when things that were previously limited become much less so. People had "internet" when they dialed it at 56kbits, but things like youtube were impossible. I'd guess that self driving zip-cars would be at least as big a paradigm shift.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jsolson 15y ago
As mentioned elsewhere in the comments, not all cities are created equal. I spent a decade or so in Atlanta (ages 18-28), and I agree that if I were to have kids there I'd almost certainly move out to the suburbs (probably Decatur, certainly not something like Roswell or Alpharetta). Now I live in Seattle, though, and here I'm likely to stay in the city. Everything here feels denser, and there are a number of nice neighborhoods within the city where you can buy a nice (albeit obscenely expensive) home. I hear the schools aren't bad either. I see a lot of families around town made up of people that seem a lot like me. I never saw that in Atlanta.

by learc83 15y ago

EricDeb 15y ago

I agree. As an "underdeveloped" (ie no impending plans to escape to the suburbs with a newly betrothed spouse) 22 year old I have no desire to be in the suburbs because they seem boring and lack the nightlife and women that currently interest me.

toyg 15y ago

The self-driving car will still need energy to run. Suburbs are built on the principle that energy is cheap. That is no longer the case.

TheFuture 15y ago
The self driving car will be much more energy efficient, especially if they can communicate with each other to optimize traffic flow
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Improving traffic flow is a win, but only a small win. Lugging around the mass of the car and yourself is still by far and away the biggest energy cost of operating a car, not sitting at a stoplight or getting stuck in stop-and-go. Clearing up 1 mile of stop-and-go is not going to make up for the 9 miles from your house to the city streets on your 10-mile commute.
  - jerf 15y ago
    The self-driving car will (eventually) be only one part of a larger ecosystem. A scheduled trip on your rent-a-car share may well take you to a dynamically-scheduled bus that will aggregate many people's trips. Also, the car you call will be only as powerful as it needs to be, so you won't be routinely driving around in an SUV when all you need is an efficient sedan for a given trip. Electric cars work much better in this environment, because they can easily either go charge up or do battery exchange on a commercial-fleet scale instead of at a neighborhood gas station. Personally, I'm also pretty sure the net effect of self-driving cars will also be to spread out the suburbs even more too. Most people imagine self-driving cars that are still owned by you and have single-owner use patterns, but the economics of that don't work; in nothing flat owners start renting their car out during their off times, AirBnB style, and it's a short hop from there to simply providing cars as a service. Somebody is going to get very rich being the somebody who wins on the network effects and creates "the" transportation-as-a-service company. It's going to be an enormous change, and I find it unlikely it's going to play to the city's advantages in terms of people actually moving there.
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    But most of a car's energy is spent accelerating, with the rest spent fighting wind resistance. Improved traffic flow helps with both -- no stop and go means no energy wasted to braking, and automated car trains will allow cars to take turns drafting off one another for a significant reduction in drag. Notice that cars have markedly different highway vs. city mileage ratings. The old BMW I used to drive would get better than 26 (not great by today's standards) on an open freeway, but 17-18 in city traffic due to repeated acceleration and idling. Algorithmically optimized traffic flow would allow cars to spend more time in the highway range.
    - sliverstorm 15y ago
      On a freeway drive, I assure you, energy spent maintaining speed is the primary investment by great lengths. This is an over-generalization. Yes, city mileage is generally lower than highway, and yes, it is because of stop-and-go. But markedly different? My old car got 32 freeway, 29 city. My current car gets 27 freeway, 25 city. Cars with a large difference, like your BMW, suffer either from poor aerodynamics or engine configuration. (That is to say, the particular engine setup operates very inefficiently when accelerating from a stop) Now, the most damning evidence of all- the Prius gets 40 freeway, 44 city. Automating drafting is an interesting suggestion, but anecdotal evidence from hypermilers suggests that even when drafting close behind a big-rig, you typically only net a few percent. In addition, to get any kind of measurable improvements from drafting behind a regular car, you'd basically have to ride their bumper. It seems unlikely we will permit computers to try this any time soon. In the end, my point is not that improved traffic flow is worthless- it is a win in nearly every aspect- but that it is a small, incremental win. It is not going to reduce our energy consumption enough as to obviate our dependence on cheap energy, which ties back in to the earlier point this discussion spawned from: Suburbs are built on the principle that energy is cheap. That is no longer the case.
- philwelch 15y ago
  You're using 2500 pounds of steel to carry a 200 pound human. Even if you assume 100% efficiency and power it with pixie dust that's too energy intensive. You're also using a 6 foot by 12 foot cage to convey that human being, which isn't scalable regardless of how much you optimize traffic flow. And that's if you're driving a Mini Cooper.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    Not sure what I said wrong here. If someone could explain so I can improve I'd appreciate it.
learc83 15y ago
Gas prices have gone up, but adjusted for inflation not outrageously so. http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasolin... Additionally gasoline isn't the only energy source. Once solar power reaches grid parity and electric cars are popular gas prices won't mean much. You're right that energy is finite and if we stay on the current energy consumption growth curve, energy will continue to get more expensive. However by that logic--extrapolating the decrease in time it takes me to run a mile each week--I'll be able to teleport in a few months. Population growth slows when a country becomes developed and at some point we will reach an equilibrium.
- icebraining 15y ago
  Gas prices have gone up, but adjusted for inflation not outrageously so. But gas prices are themselves a big (maybe even the largest?) drivers of inflation, since they are not only counted themselves as they result in price raises for a lot of other products, like food.
  - learc83 15y ago
    You can look at gas prices as a percent of personal expenditures to see gasolines direct cost to the consumer. You'll see a similar curve. http://jerrykhachoyan.com/gas-expenditures-as-a-percent-of-pce/ http://jerrykhachoyan.com/gas-expenditures-as-a-percent-of-p... Yes other components of personal expenditure are affected by gas prices which affects the percentage, but when an individual is considering where to live the only component of gas price that matters is it's direct cost.
  - bodigital 15y ago
    You mean indicator of inflation. Inflation is the cause.
sien 15y ago
It is the case. Natural gas spot prices are at a low. http://mjperry.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/natural-gas-prices-fall-below-2-might.html http://mjperry.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/natural-gas-prices-fa... As fracking takes off globally they'll probably decline even further. Cars can run on natural gas. Many, perhaps even the majority of taxis do in Australia. When people get self-driving cars whatever is most economic, natural gas, petroleum or electric power will be used.

gte910h 15y ago

>Atlanta Public schools are pretty horrible What do you mean? APS mostly gets issues with disparity of performance (aka, the children of the rich people far outperform the children of everyone else). Sure, there are bad ones. But don't live there: http://www.atlantapublicschools.us/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&ModuleInstanceID=738&ViewID=047E6BE3-6D87-4130-8424-D8E4E9ED6C2A&RenderLoc=0&FlexDataID=26568&PageID=1 http://www.atlantapublicschools.us/site/default.aspx?PageTyp... This explains why you may think the schools are bad: http://midtown.patch.com/articles/grady-high-school-one-step-above-georgia-s-worst-performing-schools http://midtown.patch.com/articles/grady-high-school-one-step... RE Grady (and others): "Focus schools are either for graduation rates lower than 60% or achievement gaps in achievement or graduation rate between the highest performing subgroup and the lowest performing subgroup. They are on it because of the gap on graduation rate between their highest subgroup and their lowest subgroup." Basically, lots of child performance in school is based on who your parents are, not what your school does.

learc83 15y ago
I was mainly talking about things like the recent widespread systemic cheating. 44 out of 56 schools were cheating on the CRCT. Edit: by things like that, I mean an environment where that large a percentage of schools feel pressured to cheat. I'm aware that state and federal rules and standardized tests are responsible for some of the pressure, but none of the other school systems in the metro-atlanta area had such wide spread cheating even though they were under the same state and federal pressures. I'm going to say there is something wrong with the way the school district is ran if 44/56 schools are cheating.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- gte910h 15y ago
  It was shown in the governers report to be Barbra Hall and the principals doing the pressure. People who are quitting/being fired/etc right now. http://www.ajc.com/news/volume-1-of-special-1000798.html http://www.ajc.com/news/volume-1-of-special-1000798.html http://www.ajc.com/news/volume-2volume-2-of-special-1000571.html http://www.ajc.com/news/volume-2volume-2-of-special-1000571.... http://www.ajc.com/news/volume-3volume-3-conclusions-why-1000781.html http://www.ajc.com/news/volume-3volume-3-conclusions-why-100... It's actually a pretty interesting read, with testimony and specific allegations.

TheFuture 15y ago

EXACTLY. This notion that gen y is some sort of elightend urban dweller is ridiculous. Gen y is the most immature gen ever in American history. They treat college like a party, an excuse to extend childish behavior, and just throw the bill on some low interest student loans. No wonder they all rent, their credit is terrible. And then they don't get that 80k job handed to them, so they still work at Starbucks at 26yrs old with a BA in pyschology or poli sci, which they took because the classes were easy. I agree, its all about having kids and growing up. Once your children become your priority, your school district becomes important, and every major urban center in the USA has a school system somewhere between bad and god-awful. Watch the movies Waiting For Superman and The Cartel if you want to see what a mess that situation is. I don't see it getting resolved in the next 5-10 years, which is when gen y will start having kids.

novalis 15y ago
I am certain "having kids" is not a prerequisite for maturity. I know a lot of younger people that are from said gen y age and they aren't one group that can be defined by any of what you postulate. Projecting the errors of past generations on the adapting younger generations isn't very helpful in general. That is the sort of ego stroke that brought us to this point. One of many. Contact your legislators for any solve-all plan you have that will "fix" the costly inept educational system. As for your impositions or projections on others path through life, save them, it looks like they generate a lot of passive aggressiveness in you already.
icebraining 15y ago
Sorry, I downvoted you by mistake:|
datasage 15y ago
While I agree there are schools that are terrible, student success is not solely the responsibly of the school. A child that is in a stable home environment that values education and exploration can probably do just as much as a good school can. Now we tend to self segregate and choose to live in places with people like us. As professionals choose to live in cities instead of suburbs, schools around them will likely be better funded.

batista 15y ago

>Additionally the rise of the self driving car is going to completely torpedo 90% of the advantages of living in a city. The rise of what? We've seen some experimental designs, but I don't see the "rise" coming any time soon. Plus, the price of oil is more important factor --as for them "coordinating with other vehicles to increase efficiency" (as someone writes in a comment below), well, that seems marginal, especially since we are discussing driving OUTSIDE of the city.

learc83 15y ago
>but I don't see the "rise" coming any time soon. Nevada already implemented regulations to allow companies to test drive self driving cars on its roads, and all it will take for the rest of the nation to follow is for Google get California on board. The technology is already here. It's all about regulation and politics now, and there is so much money to made that it's just a question of when not if. If I can't buy a self-driving car in 10 years, I'm going to build my own.
- _delirium 15y ago
  I've only seen tests on highways; afaik Google's car can't yet technologically manage the process of showing up to a random spot you want it to. For example, it can drive on 280, but it can't exit 280 into SF, navigate surface streets, and pull up to the curb where you're waiting.
  - drusenko 15y ago
    I don't think that's true. See this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html?page...): ---------- During a half-hour drive beginning on Google’s campus 35 miles south of San Francisco last Wednesday, a Prius equipped with a variety of sensors and following a route programmed into the GPS navigation system nimbly accelerated in the entrance lane and merged into fast-moving traffic on Highway 101, the freeway through Silicon Valley. It drove at the speed limit, which it knew because the limit for every road is included in its database, and left the freeway several exits later. The device atop the car produced a detailed map of the environment. The car then drove in city traffic through Mountain View, stopping for lights and stop signs, as well as making announcements like “approaching a crosswalk” (to warn the human at the wheel) or “turn ahead” in a pleasant female voice. This same pleasant voice would, engineers said, alert the driver if a master control system detected anything amiss with the various sensors. The car can be programmed for different driving personalities — from cautious, in which it is more likely to yield to another car, to aggressive, where it is more likely to go first. ---------- Also, the Wikipedia page indicates the same: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car

aboodman 15y ago

It isn't entirely the having to manually drive that people don't like about driving. It's also the time and cost to run, park, insure, maintain, etc. Driverless cars won't help most of this. No matter who is doing the driving, walking a few blocks is more convenient than driving a mile. And anyway, walking is more fun. I grew up in suburbs, and the article described my experience perfectly. I may someday move away from the urban core, but I don't forsee myself ever living more than a block or two from a few cafes and a market.

learc83 15y ago
>It's also the time and cost to run, park, insure, maintain, etc. Driverless cars won't help most of this. Driverless cars will help almost all of those. Think how much more viable zip cars would become if you didn't have to get to the car in the first place. If you could just call a car with a smartphone app and it would show up. Parking is a non issue because it drops you off at the door, and it can go park wherever is cheapest or just head off to another customer and you can call another one later. >walking a few blocks is more convenient than driving a mile. That's true if you live somewhere with a climate similar to Southern California, but there are plenty of places where I definitely do not want to walk a few blocks during most of the year.
- gradstudent 15y ago
  >Driverless cars will help almost all of those. Think how much more viable zip cars would become if you didn't have to get to the car in the first place. If you could just call a car with a smartphone app and it would show up. Congratulations: You've just described taxi cabs.
  - noonespecial 15y ago
    Taxis are expensive and severely supply side limited. Interesting things happen when things that were previously limited become much less so. People had "internet" when they dialed it at 56kbits, but things like youtube were impossible. I'd guess that self driving zip-cars would be at least as big a paradigm shift.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

jsolson 15y ago

As mentioned elsewhere in the comments, not all cities are created equal. I spent a decade or so in Atlanta (ages 18-28), and I agree that if I were to have kids there I'd almost certainly move out to the suburbs (probably Decatur, certainly not something like Roswell or Alpharetta). Now I live in Seattle, though, and here I'm likely to stay in the city. Everything here feels denser, and there are a number of nice neighborhoods within the city where you can buy a nice (albeit obscenely expensive) home. I hear the schools aren't bad either. I see a lot of families around town made up of people that seem a lot like me. I never saw that in Atlanta.