4 ms·

People repeatedly crossing lights will create traffic in the city, self driving or not. Using your own infrastructure negates what self driving tech bros are t

People repeatedly crossing lights will create traffic in the city, self driving or not. Using your own infrastructure negates what self driving tech bros are trying to achieve - pods on existing roads.

triceratops 1y ago
Your vision for public transportation sounds like "trains, walk, bike, or gtfo". There's 0 room for buses. If someone lives 2 miles from a train station and can't bike, too bad. Maybe you don't mean that, but it sounds like that to me. Please explain how last-mile connectivity works in your world.
- simgt 1y ago
  This edge case always comes up as counter argument to better public transports and cycling infrastructure. The few who can't combine walking or a bike with some form of public transport will simply rely on less efficient modes of transport on the now much less busy roads... be it a (small) car, a shuttle, a taxi, or whatever makes sense. It'd be silly to suggest we don't need escalators because the elderly only use the elevator anyway.
  - triceratops 1y ago
    > The few who can't combine walking or a bike Outside of dense metros, getting to the nearest bus stop or train station (note: nearest, and not necessarily the one you need for that trip) entails a minimum 10 minute walk. Most people don't live in NYC where you climb down from your apartment and board the bus/subway. Add on a 10 minute walk at the other end of the ride as well, and some waiting for the bus or train, and your trip is already 30 minutes long without going anywhere. So then you resort to biking to save time. Even assuming 100% of the population can bike (not true because elders, small children, people with disabilities etc.) buses only have 2 bike racks. Trains are somewhat better but even they don't have space for everyone's bike. Train-heavy solutions work best in dense urban environments. Most of North America is not like that. You need complementary modes of transportation. They aren't for "edge cases". They are a holistic solution that makes the entire system accessible. A train is useless if people can't get to it easily. If there are frequent, fast bus routes to get people around then train ridership goes up too. It's not a competition.
    - BoxFour 1y ago
      Even in a place as dense as manhattan (where I live), it’s very common to spend 30 minutes on your commute still between walking to/from the subway and waiting for the train. Without sounding too harsh, a 20-minute walk really shouldn’t be a major hurdle for the vast majority of working adults. Whenever I visit other parts of the US I’m struck by how resistant people are to walking even half a mile in the best of circumstances: wide, well-lit sidewalks etc. It’s remarkable how often we default to driving for trips that clearly don’t require it, and it’s like I’m speaking heresy for even suggesting it when visiting somewhere that has pedestrian paths. At the heart of the public transit debate, it seems, is a simple reality: Much of the country simply doesn’t want to move at all, even short distances. Suggesting someone walks half a mile sometimes feels like suggesting they run a marathon. All the pedestrian infrastructure in the world won’t change that.
      - triceratops 1y ago
        > a 20-minute walk really shouldn’t be a major hurdle for the vast majority of working adults Most US adults live in suburban or non-dense cities. In the 20 minutes it takes to walk to and from the bus stop they can complete most of their trips in a car. Driving is the competition. Walking per se isn't the problem. The time it wastes is the hurdle. > Even in... manhattan... it’s very common to spend 30 minutes... between walking to/from the And that's an acceptable tradeoff in Manhattan because driving the same distance would take twice as long and be 4 times as expensive.
- general1726 1y ago
  If you are not a bed ridden, you can walk from a stop to your home. Solution does not need to be perfect, it just needs to be acceptable (price and capacity) for most of people and pods aren't either cheap nor have enough capacity.

triceratops 1y ago

Your vision for public transportation sounds like "trains, walk, bike, or gtfo". There's 0 room for buses. If someone lives 2 miles from a train station and can't bike, too bad. Maybe you don't mean that, but it sounds like that to me. Please explain how last-mile connectivity works in your world.

simgt 1y ago
This edge case always comes up as counter argument to better public transports and cycling infrastructure. The few who can't combine walking or a bike with some form of public transport will simply rely on less efficient modes of transport on the now much less busy roads... be it a (small) car, a shuttle, a taxi, or whatever makes sense. It'd be silly to suggest we don't need escalators because the elderly only use the elevator anyway.
- triceratops 1y ago
  > The few who can't combine walking or a bike Outside of dense metros, getting to the nearest bus stop or train station (note: nearest, and not necessarily the one you need for that trip) entails a minimum 10 minute walk. Most people don't live in NYC where you climb down from your apartment and board the bus/subway. Add on a 10 minute walk at the other end of the ride as well, and some waiting for the bus or train, and your trip is already 30 minutes long without going anywhere. So then you resort to biking to save time. Even assuming 100% of the population can bike (not true because elders, small children, people with disabilities etc.) buses only have 2 bike racks. Trains are somewhat better but even they don't have space for everyone's bike. Train-heavy solutions work best in dense urban environments. Most of North America is not like that. You need complementary modes of transportation. They aren't for "edge cases". They are a holistic solution that makes the entire system accessible. A train is useless if people can't get to it easily. If there are frequent, fast bus routes to get people around then train ridership goes up too. It's not a competition.
  - BoxFour 1y ago
    Even in a place as dense as manhattan (where I live), it’s very common to spend 30 minutes on your commute still between walking to/from the subway and waiting for the train. Without sounding too harsh, a 20-minute walk really shouldn’t be a major hurdle for the vast majority of working adults. Whenever I visit other parts of the US I’m struck by how resistant people are to walking even half a mile in the best of circumstances: wide, well-lit sidewalks etc. It’s remarkable how often we default to driving for trips that clearly don’t require it, and it’s like I’m speaking heresy for even suggesting it when visiting somewhere that has pedestrian paths. At the heart of the public transit debate, it seems, is a simple reality: Much of the country simply doesn’t want to move at all, even short distances. Suggesting someone walks half a mile sometimes feels like suggesting they run a marathon. All the pedestrian infrastructure in the world won’t change that.
    - triceratops 1y ago
      > a 20-minute walk really shouldn’t be a major hurdle for the vast majority of working adults Most US adults live in suburban or non-dense cities. In the 20 minutes it takes to walk to and from the bus stop they can complete most of their trips in a car. Driving is the competition. Walking per se isn't the problem. The time it wastes is the hurdle. > Even in... manhattan... it’s very common to spend 30 minutes... between walking to/from the And that's an acceptable tradeoff in Manhattan because driving the same distance would take twice as long and be 4 times as expensive.
general1726 1y ago
If you are not a bed ridden, you can walk from a stop to your home. Solution does not need to be perfect, it just needs to be acceptable (price and capacity) for most of people and pods aren't either cheap nor have enough capacity.