4 ms·

Why are we using self-driving vehicles as a panacea for historical underinvestment in public transport? Not saying that they wouldn't play a role in a function

Why are we using self-driving vehicles as a panacea for historical underinvestment in public transport? Not saying that they wouldn't play a role in a functional public transport system, they'd be invaluable for the last two miles from your station to your destination. But while our people transporting systems prioritise roads and cars, we will never have the high quality and safe public transport that high quality of life cities thrive on. (And while I write this from NZ, with only limited experiences of LA and SF, we copied America, we went for sprawl and freeways, and it's strangling our largest city.) I know and spend time with people who live in Berlin, Munich and Hamburg, that don't own a car, because they don't need to own a car. They might rent one for a holiday into Italy, or they might use an app like Lime / Bird etc. to rent very short term a tiny car like a BMW i3 for a big grocery shop. But because their cities are dense, and mix commercial with residential (e.g., ā bunch of 5 storey apartment buildings with the ground/first floor being commercial, depending on where you are), they can often buy groceries at the local market on foot on their way home from the U-Bahn, or head down to the local Getränkhandel on a bike with a basket or two to buy their beer and bottled water. Centralising commerce away from residential, especially with big box shopping areas, is predicated on car culture, and bakes in the need for cars. TL;DR self-driving vehicles alone are a band-aid over an unsustainable transport culture and strategy. But they'll form a critical part of a sustainable one.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dlivingston 2y ago
The reason we need self-driving cars is because we need cars. The reason we need cars is because of the way our cities are structured. The reason our cities are structured the way they are is due to large land availability & zoning laws, leading to massive spread. Public transit will work for some of the people some of the time. (That is, if it can even be built - highly recommend Ezra Klein's new book Abundance on ways to get out of this). For the people that public transit won't work for, you need to come up with a new solution if you want to see cars go away: a solution that makes going from A to B some combination of easier, cheaper, faster, more convenient than driving. Or, a solution that brings B closer to A (like changing zoning laws or building cheaper housing in metro areas).
- bpt3 2y ago
  You missed a critical (last?) step in your reasoning: The reason we have massive spread is because most humans want as much living space as they can possibly acquire and our laws and social norms reflect that.
npunt 2y ago
Hear me out, I've spent years thinking about this :) Yes, past underinvestment is bad. And yes, initially they are a band-aid, until yes they do become critical. My excitement for self-driving tech isn't about the short term changes, but just how powerful a technology this is in the longer term. Ultimately this tech is not about cars, it's about the ability to automate the movement of mass. This is novel and meaningful. An obvious medium-term implication of self-driving is that cities will ban human drivers, because that way cities can ditch a bunch of high-cost infrastructure required because of human fallibility. Up until that point, self-driving would be a band-aid. After that point, the dominoes start to fall. 1. Form factors change: cars become 1-4 person pods, stripped of the unnecessary bulk of excessive safety systems and unused capacity. 2. Ownership changes: municipalities will buy fleets of cheap mass-produced pods to replace extremely capex intensive public transport. 3. What is transported changes: now you have shipping drones dropping off standardized (reusable) packages into standardized intakes. Think The Box [1] but smaller. 4. Infrastructure changes: Roads narrow, parking becomes drop-off spots, larger cafes, actual parks. Cut and cover roads multiply, leaving more space above ground for people. Cities grow 20% without getting bigger, just by obviating the need for half their roads. The blight of various parking signs and warnings to drivers disappear. People can walk about freely or ride their bikes. It's quieter. The air quality improves. 5. Housing changes: Garages transform into rooms. People ditch bulky refrigerators in favor of ordering drone-delivered fresh produce in minutes. Drones deliver upstairs not just at street level. Pods become elevators. We've seen all this in science fiction... guess what the enabling technology is? If you extend the implications of the automated movement of mass, the logical conclusion is the physical infrastructure of the city will transform to take advantage of every gain that creates. Cities dedicate 25-40%+ of their land mass to roads. In dense urban cores, 20% of their land mass is just parking spots. We can't route people-driven cars underground unless we really really mean it and build a highway. We waste a huge amount of space on transportation. We also shape all of our buildings around the constraints imposed by car-shaped objects and all their various externalities, including noise and air pollution. My belief is that self-driving is easily the most transformative tech to hit cities since the car, and may exceed the impact that cars have had on the built world. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Box_(Levinson_book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Box_(Levinson_book)
- 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

dlivingston 2y ago

The reason we need self-driving cars is because we need cars. The reason we need cars is because of the way our cities are structured. The reason our cities are structured the way they are is due to large land availability & zoning laws, leading to massive spread. Public transit will work for some of the people some of the time. (That is, if it can even be built - highly recommend Ezra Klein's new book Abundance on ways to get out of this). For the people that public transit won't work for, you need to come up with a new solution if you want to see cars go away: a solution that makes going from A to B some combination of easier, cheaper, faster, more convenient than driving. Or, a solution that brings B closer to A (like changing zoning laws or building cheaper housing in metro areas).

bpt3 2y ago
You missed a critical (last?) step in your reasoning: The reason we have massive spread is because most humans want as much living space as they can possibly acquire and our laws and social norms reflect that.

npunt 2y ago

Hear me out, I've spent years thinking about this :) Yes, past underinvestment is bad. And yes, initially they are a band-aid, until yes they do become critical. My excitement for self-driving tech isn't about the short term changes, but just how powerful a technology this is in the longer term. Ultimately this tech is not about cars, it's about the ability to automate the movement of mass. This is novel and meaningful. An obvious medium-term implication of self-driving is that cities will ban human drivers, because that way cities can ditch a bunch of high-cost infrastructure required because of human fallibility. Up until that point, self-driving would be a band-aid. After that point, the dominoes start to fall. 1. Form factors change: cars become 1-4 person pods, stripped of the unnecessary bulk of excessive safety systems and unused capacity. 2. Ownership changes: municipalities will buy fleets of cheap mass-produced pods to replace extremely capex intensive public transport. 3. What is transported changes: now you have shipping drones dropping off standardized (reusable) packages into standardized intakes. Think The Box [1] but smaller. 4. Infrastructure changes: Roads narrow, parking becomes drop-off spots, larger cafes, actual parks. Cut and cover roads multiply, leaving more space above ground for people. Cities grow 20% without getting bigger, just by obviating the need for half their roads. The blight of various parking signs and warnings to drivers disappear. People can walk about freely or ride their bikes. It's quieter. The air quality improves. 5. Housing changes: Garages transform into rooms. People ditch bulky refrigerators in favor of ordering drone-delivered fresh produce in minutes. Drones deliver upstairs not just at street level. Pods become elevators. We've seen all this in science fiction... guess what the enabling technology is? If you extend the implications of the automated movement of mass, the logical conclusion is the physical infrastructure of the city will transform to take advantage of every gain that creates. Cities dedicate 25-40%+ of their land mass to roads. In dense urban cores, 20% of their land mass is just parking spots. We can't route people-driven cars underground unless we really really mean it and build a highway. We waste a huge amount of space on transportation. We also shape all of our buildings around the constraints imposed by car-shaped objects and all their various externalities, including noise and air pollution. My belief is that self-driving is easily the most transformative tech to hit cities since the car, and may exceed the impact that cars have had on the built world. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Box_(Levinson_book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Box_(Levinson_book)

2y ago