People will travel more often and travel longer distances.
November 10, 2024 11:59 AM Subscribe
How Self-Driving Cars will Destroy Cities (and what to do about it)
References & Further Reading at notjustbikes.com
posted by Lanark at 12:37 PM on November 10 [3 favorites]
posted by Lanark at 12:37 PM on November 10 [3 favorites]
The point is that geometry itself means we can’t build enough roads to satisfy demand for driving, photo guy; the cheaper it is to drive the more they fill up, to the point of borderline uselessness. Self driving cars, especially if they’re allowed to drive with no one in them, make driving much effort-cheaper and usually money-cheaper too. Result, gridlock.
posted by clew at 12:44 PM on November 10 [13 favorites]
posted by clew at 12:44 PM on November 10 [13 favorites]
I'm largely with you, photo guy, in that I think autonomous vehicles, if used correctly (which is a hell of a qualifier given current attitudes toward regulation!), could vastly improve road safety. I don't think any of the other supposed benefits really hold water, though, even in the most ideal scenario. Most of the worst parts of bad suburban design can be mitigated without completely rebuilding the roads.
However, I have to take exception with the idea that cities and suburbs need wholesale rebuilding to make them more amenable to transportation not involving cars. There are a ton of small things that can be done that have a huge impact on the feasibility of walking and cycling in the short term.
Beyond that, the wholesale rebuilding of most suburbs more than a decade or two old is already in progress and happening naturally as the suburban cities realize how utterly fucked they are financially. They have to increase density or face financial ruin, so they're choosing density and cities are thereby being reshaped in the same way they were originally built.
posted by wierdo at 12:50 PM on November 10 [8 favorites]
However, I have to take exception with the idea that cities and suburbs need wholesale rebuilding to make them more amenable to transportation not involving cars. There are a ton of small things that can be done that have a huge impact on the feasibility of walking and cycling in the short term.
Beyond that, the wholesale rebuilding of most suburbs more than a decade or two old is already in progress and happening naturally as the suburban cities realize how utterly fucked they are financially. They have to increase density or face financial ruin, so they're choosing density and cities are thereby being reshaped in the same way they were originally built.
posted by wierdo at 12:50 PM on November 10 [8 favorites]
Why should their automated living room move about? Sleeping overnight outside of town to be dropped off at your warehouse-of-mechanical-turks job, that's bullshit!
It's remember that reinventing public transit is the carcinization of the automobile. Don't listen to "Just one more lane, pls. It'll work with just one more lane."
posted by k3ninho at 12:51 PM on November 10 [4 favorites]
It's remember that reinventing public transit is the carcinization of the automobile. Don't listen to "Just one more lane, pls. It'll work with just one more lane."
posted by k3ninho at 12:51 PM on November 10 [4 favorites]
I have lived in countries with amazing transit and have seen the real difference it can make. However, I also know most of the US isn't built that way, and razing entire cities to rebuild them better isn't feasible nor realistic.
The good news is that you don't have to raze entire cities. You have to change some zoning laws - zone to allow people to build for density (eg row houses, multi-family buildings, mixed use stuff with commerce on the ground floor and residential above), and get rid of the mandatory minimum parking requirements that make projects way too expensive and space inefficient.
posted by entropone at 12:52 PM on November 10 [14 favorites]
The good news is that you don't have to raze entire cities. You have to change some zoning laws - zone to allow people to build for density (eg row houses, multi-family buildings, mixed use stuff with commerce on the ground floor and residential above), and get rid of the mandatory minimum parking requirements that make projects way too expensive and space inefficient.
posted by entropone at 12:52 PM on November 10 [14 favorites]
The comparison between Fake London and Utrecht was really interesting.
posted by whatevernot at 12:55 PM on November 10 [1 favorite]
posted by whatevernot at 12:55 PM on November 10 [1 favorite]
photo guy: Is there an equivalent text link?
Hete's some via the subtitles at dowbloadyoutubesubtitles.com for v=040ejWnFkj0.
Click for subtitles as transcript. (It's a 54 minute video, so that's a lot of scrolling.)
a lot has been said about the future of
self-driving cars some people take a
very negative position claiming that
autonomous vehicles are a pipe dream and
will never become a reality they're just
another example of the overhyped
nonsense that's typical of tech
companies these days and that may be
true but in several US cities today you
can literally open an app select your
destination and a car with nobody in it
will pick you up and drive you there
automatically so self driving cars are
here today which leads to the other kind
of commentary I often see online that
self-driving cars are real they will be
coming to more cities soon and they will
solve all of our transportation problems
they'll make the road safer they'll
eliminate traffic congestion they'll be
environmentally friendly they'll provide
Mobility to everyone and our cities will
be better than ever I actually disagree
with both of these positions which is
why I wanted to make this video because
I do believe that self-driving cars are
real and they will be in every city in
the near future the technology is
getting better every day and if these
improvements continue on this track they
will fundamentally destroy the fabric of
our
cities there is a cautious optimism
among many urbanists about self-driving
cars after all the majority of problems
within cities are caused by cars traffic
pollution noise dangerous streets and
there never seems to be enough space
available for sidewalks bike Lanes Parks
or anything else because it's all been
turned into wide roads and parking lots
anybody who has tried to get around
without a car in a car Centric City
knows that human drivers can be really
scary especially when they're speeding
or driving distracted which happens way
too often so having cars driven by
computers can't possibly be worse than
what we have now right and it is
possible that with the right incentives
and regulations that could be our future
but given the course we're on I believe
that future is increasingly unlikely
especially when you consider the history
of how automobiles destroyed cities in
the 20th century but also the effects of
money and
capital it's estimated that over $60
billion has already been invested into
the development of autonomous vehicles
so there is a lot of money riding on
this technology and therefore a lot of
pressure to get self-driving cars to
Market as soon as possible when people
see these vehicles cruising around the
Streets of San Francisco They Might
believe that this technology is right
around the corner you can go there right
now and see them dropping off passengers
they follow the speed limit and appear
to drive cautiously and it's amazing to
see that there's nobody in the driver's
seat but that doesn't mean they're
always driven by
computer as of last November Crews
confirmed that their Robo taxis were
required Human Assistance every 4 to 5
miles I don't know how often this is
needed today but you don't have to watch
these cars for very long to see that
humans definitely still need to take
remote control sometimes this stupid
Robo taxi got stuck behind a
construction toilet trailer until
someone in the call center could steer
it around this one sat here for several
light cycles because it didn't think it
could turn right the drivers behind it
eventually gave up waiting and just
drove around now you might be wondering
about these remote assistant agents who
take control who are these people where
are they located how much are they paid
what are the working conditions like but
never mind all that it's a technological
Miracle okay just shut up and get in the
car now of course this technology will
inevitably get better but nobody knows
how long it will take to sort out the
long tale of rare occurrences that a
self-driving car will encounter in a
busy City and as any experienced product
manager will tell you the first 90% of a
project takes 90% of the time and the
last 10% of the project will take the
other
90% the technology is Advanced but
fundamentally self-driving cars are
stupid they're mindless they make a
bunch of dumb mistakes recently in this
parking lot for self-driving cars whmo
vehicles started driving in circles and
randomly honking at each
[Music]
other this happened for days and this
particular video was taken at 4:00 a.m.
the people who live next door were not
impressed there have been dozens of
official reports of driverless cars
getting in the way of rescue operations
from blocking ambulances to crashing
into fir trucks but it gets worse last
October a woman was hit by a car in San
Francisco driven by a human driver and
knocked into the path of a Cruz Robo
taxi Cruz said the vehicle quote break
aggressively to minimize impact and
while the robo taxi couldn't stop fast
enough to avoid hitting the woman it
still reacted faster than any human
could so that's a win for self-driving
cars right except that the woman then
fell under the car so as far as the robo
taxi was concerned she was gone so it
continued to drive dragging her
underneath a key detail that Crews
initially tried to hide from the press
and
Regulators it's a first for police and
fire departments involving a driver car
the victim was found to be under the
left rear wheel of the vehicle
thankfully the woman survived and cruise
cars were taken off the roads but this
is a scary example of how these cars
will make new mistakes that we haven't
even considered yet they are not
intelligent they don't even have the
object permanence of a toddler but that
hasn't stopped them from being beta
tested on public roads and the citizens
of these cities did not agree to this
several groups in California have
protested against being the involuntary
test subjects of multi-billion dollar
tech companies and a wh Mo car was even
set on fire earlier this year
self-driving cars have caused a lot of
problems in San Francisco wayo cars in
San Francisco reportedly caused a big
traffic jam just as Baseball fans were
leaving Oracle Park Monday afternoon a
KTVU viewers shared this video you're
looking at showing two self-driving cars
stopped in in the middle of the Embark
of daral the advocacy group safe Street
Rebel has published video evidence of
self-driving cars running red lights
cutting off drivers cutting off
pedestrians clogging up intersections
blocking streets blocking public transit
parking in bike lanes and uh what the
hell is this car doing to that old woman
so the idea that these cars will always
obey the rules of the road is a
fantasy safe Street Rebel ALS also
organizes events like the week of cone
since self-driving cars are programmed
to avoid traffic cones at all costs one
of the best way to incapacitate one is
to put a traffic cone on its Hood this
is called coning and it's [ __ ]
hilarious I'm sure these Mega
corporations will Lobby to make this a
criminal offense so do it now while you
still can safe Street Rebel does a lot
of great advocacy work that goes beyond
reigning in tech companies so definitely
check them out if you live in or near
near San Francisco I'll leave a link in
the
description these protests may slow
adoption but let's face it there is no
way in hell we're going to stop these
things from coming to our cities when
there are hundreds of billions of
dollars on the line and to be clear most
of these incidents would not have even
happened if the self-driving car
companies still had Safety Drivers like
they used to but they're under so much
pressure to deliver that they'd rather
[ __ ] up the city and even potentially
kill people rather than to admit that
the technology isn't ready yet tech
companies proudly say that they move
fast and break things and maybe that
broken thing will be your spine under a
robo taxi but that's a risk they're
willing to take self-driving car
companies have already lobbied
politicians to allow them to operate
based only on self-certification and
they've successfully stopped laws that
require them to report extensive safety
data recent L California passed a bill
that says police can't even ticket
self-driving car companies when their
cars violate traffic
laws it may be that eventually on
average self-driving cars will be safer
than human drivers in the future but it
is incredibly naive to believe that they
will not introduce new safety problems
of their own a self-driving car will try
to avoid hitting people and objects and
there are dozens of sensors to make sure
that doesn't happen but these sensors
are not infallible and they require
interpretation by
software it's important for self-driving
cars not to crash into things that are
there but it's also important that they
don't stop for things that aren't like
this Tesla in self-driving mode that
suddenly came to a stop on the highway
and caused an8 car pile up you don't
want a self-driving car to stop just
because there's a bit of garbage blown
onto the road or it detect something
that won't cross the path of the vehicle
anyway so the software needs to evaluate
object that it
detects the first person to ever be
killed by a self-driving car was a woman
in Tempe Arizona in
2018 she was crossing this road at night
while pushing a bicycle and was hit by a
modified Volvo SUV driven autonomously
by the automated driving system
developed by Uber so why didn't all of
this advanced technology prevent killing
her it's not that the car didn't detect
her it's just that it didn't think she
was anything worth stopping
for the crash report from the NTSB
provides a detailed explanation the car
flipped between identifying her as a
vehicle to a bicycle to a general other
category sometimes it detected her as
being in another Lane and other times as
a static object that wasn't moving the
software didn't consider her to be an
important object that was going to cross
the path of the SUV until 1.2 seconds
before the crash when it was too late to
stop without killing her so when a
self-driving car car starts driving
towards you you better hope it hasn't
detected you as
other but all this talk about sensors
and self-driving obus skates the real
root cause of this crash which is the
atrocious state of American traffic
engineering this area is designed like a
freeway with a high speed limit and
almost no accommodations for people
walking despite being directly between a
rail station and hiking trails at the
time of the crash the median had a paved
Road way designed only to be used by
cars if one of the bridges was closed
but it clearly looked like a walking
path and it was regularly used by people
crossing this road instead of any actual
pedestrian infrastructure the city just
put up these used crosswalk signs that
are still there today it's disgraceful
that Traffic Engineers put up these
signs in a natural place where people
would want to cross the road instead of
you know actually building a crosswalk
here but what's worse is that in 2018 it
wasn't even physically possible to walk
to the crosswalk because of the trees
and Greenery that had been planted here
since the crash the solution has been to
turn the brick roadway into a rough
Stone path that is hostile to
pedestrians but they've now cut a hole
through the cacti so that it is at least
theoretically possible to reach the
crosswalk now though you still have to
walk over 200 M out of your way plus the
time it takes to wait for your turn to
cross this highway American traffic
engine Engineers routinely bend over
backwards to make driving as convenient
as possible while making these places
actively hostile to pedestrians than
blame the pedestrians when they're hit
by a car in the US around 42,000 people
are killed in car crashes every year and
hundreds of thousands are seriously
injured sometimes with debilitating
injuries that will affect them for the
rest of their lives so it's not
surprising that the most prominent
feature promised by these American
self-driving cars companies is safety
but the US also has some of the most
dangerous roads in the developed world
the most deadly kind of Road in the US
is the Strode a road designed for
high-speed travel that also tries to act
as a destination strods are rare in
other countries especially inside of
cities but they are all over the US and
Canada the nonprofit organization strong
towns has been warning about the dangers
of this kind of Road design for over a
decade and I have a previous video about
strods if you'd like to learn more there
has been Decades of research into road
safety and we know how to make the road
safer such as the vision zero method
developed in Sweden in the
1990s in fact if the US had roads as
safe as seden they would cut their Road
fatalities by over
80% without any new technology at all
but many of these design changes require
slowing or restricting cars and that's a
step too far for for the US there's no
money to be made in making the street
safer so the only solution to the
dangers caused by the old cars has to be
buying new cars self-driving car
companies do not care about Road Safety
they care about selling cars and
Technology they care about safety in so
much as it allows them to sell cars the
moment they can convince Regulators in
the general public that their cars are
safe enough they will stop caring about
safety so you can expect the messaging
to pretty quickly go from preventing
Road deaths to being yeah sure they kill
people but our marketing department says
it's less often than human drivers would
so it's fine and even if they are safer
than American drivers on American roads
the rest of the world is going to get
these cars whether we want them or not
and that's an interesting thing to
consider because right now these
vehicles are being trained in some of
the most car Centric places on Earth the
first locations were UND notably chosen
because they have very good weather but
I guarantee you that Phoenix Arizona was
also a top choice because it is
literally like driving on easy mode the
roads are insanely wide there are almost
no restrictions on where cars can go
it's made up of square grid blocks a
mile on each side and pretty much
everybody drives everywhere all the time
already to say that Phoenix is car
dependent is a massive understatement if
anthropomorphic cars could design cities
they would design Phoenix it's also one
of the most dangerous places for
pedestrians in the entire developed
world but don't worry about that
self-driving cars will fix
everything San Francisco is certainly
more urban there are people who walk and
cycle and there are public transit
Vehicles as well but I've lived in the
Bay Area and I can tell you that even
San Francisco is pretty car-centric and
carf friendly compared to most cities in
Europe which I think is going to be a
problem when this technology is rolled
out internationally these cars are
trained to drive like Americans on
American roads where cars are considered
Superior and above all other forms of
transportation have you seen an American
when they try to drive in Europe for the
first time it's not pretty of course
these tech companies could spend years
retraining their vehicles to drive like
Europeans on European streets but you
and I both know that's not going to
happen they're going to set American
trained cars loose on Europe European
streets I hope I'm wrong but I wouldn't
be surprised if European cities are
pressured to americanize their streets
to make them more self-driving friendly
which brings us to another potential
issue with these cars they are not so
much programmed as they are trained they
learned how to drive by monitoring what
real human drivers did through millions
of miles of driving so let's say that in
the future a city wants to change the
way their streets work to improve safety
to speed up public transit or to make
more room for walking and cycling
whatever it won't be enough to just put
up a sign and update the rules of the
road governments will need to convince
every self-driving car company to
retrain their cars and given that these
are multi-billion dollar International
corporations with an army of lobbyists
How likely do you think it is that those
changes will go through this could
result in our cities getting locked into
to what they are today with any new
changes being dictated by car companies
which I guarantee you is not going to
favor anything that results in fewer
cars of course there are a lot of
problems with our current transportation
system but I am skeptical that
self-driving cars will truly solve any
of them because apart from the supposed
safety claims when you boil it down
self-driving cars are really just
promising to be cheaper taxis yeah
they're not driven by a human or at
least not driven by a human who is
currently in the car with you but
otherwise they're just cheaper taxis
right like do you seriously believe that
all of our Urban transportation problems
would be solved tomorrow if only taxis
were cheaper and I'm even skeptical
about the cheaper part we saw this
happened with Uber and Lyft when app
requested taxi sorry I mean ride sharing
was introduced Uber was cheap that is
when the venture capitalist money was
flowing in fact it was so cheap that
several cities in the US reduced
investment in public transit in favor of
subsidizing ride share rides and it
worked for a while but taking an Uber
isn't cheap anymore and I'll leave a
link to this great article with an
analysis of why those price increases
can't be explained by an increase in
costs ride share legislation or
inflation they raised prices because the
owners and investors of those companies
wanted a big return on their Investments
the exact same thing is playing out now
with self-driving cars hundreds of
billions of venture capital are flowing
into the development of autonomous
vehicles and companies like wh are using
that money to make the robo taxi rides
price competitive to traditional
taxis and I I find it wild that people
online will unironically say things like
in the future AVS will be cheaper than
taxis because there's no driver to pay
like do you honestly believe that the
prices that companies charge are based
on what they cost to deliver of course
they aren't they charge as much as
possible to maximize profits and once
they've eliminated or colluded with the
competition they can charge whatever
they want and I shouldn't even need to
say this but turning your transportation
system over to a handful of
multi-billion dollar corporations does
not result in good outcomes for anybody
except the owners of those
corporations it's commonly claim that
self-driving cars will reduce the amount
of cars on the road and eliminate
parking lots uh the idea is that you
will be dropped off at the door by a
self-driving car and you won't need to
park and that's true but you can
literally do that today right you could
just take a taxi to work every day
instead of owning a car but very few
people actually do this sure it's
expensive to take taxis everywhere of
course but even wealthy people don't do
this because people just like owning
their own stuff and being in their own
car there's this vague promise that your
car could earn extra money for you as a
taxi while you're at work but how many
people want their private car to end up
looking and smelling like the inside of
a taxi so those cars are going to need
to park somewhere and their owners will
want them park nearby so that they don't
take too long to arrive when they're
ready to go and you can forget about
ever charging for parking because if
it's cheaper to just let your car cruise
around the block while you're shopping
or at work then that's what people will
do another common claim is that these
cars will allow Universal Mobility to
everyone especially the disabled but
many people with disabilities require
help from others to get in and out of a
vehicle or to secure a wheel chair so an
attendant will likely be needed on board
anyway and given that you need a credit
card and a modern smartphone to book a
robo taxy this puts it Out Of Reach of
many people sure the rich Boomer with a
bad hip will be taken care of but they
can already take a taxi today this is
really just an extension of the often
repeated myth that cars are the only
transportation that works for disabled
people and that as long as you have cars
disabled people are taken care of this
is a great article by Disability
Advocates about how self-driving cars
are a distraction to the solutions that
they actually need and I'll leave a link
to it in the
description but of all of the claims
made by proponents of self-driving cars
the one that I find most ridiculous is
the idea that they will reduce traffic
ingestion there is absolutely no reason
to believe that this is true and lots of
historical evidence to suggest that it
is not every single time that we have
done anything to make Transportation
cheaper or more convenient the
inevitable outcome is that people travel
more often and they travel longer
distances there is Decades of
well-documented evidence that every time
we widen roads or build new highways it
increases the amount of driving and I
talked about that in more detail in my
video about induced demand when Uber and
Lyft came to cities they also claimed
that they would reduce traffic
congestion but the exact opposite
happened and vehicle miles traveled
increased significantly
this will only become worse with Robo
taxis because people will take them even
more often than they do Ubers today
especially while they're heavily
subsidized I've seen some people claim
that Robo taxis will reduce the number
of cars in cities because they will park
in parking lots in the edge of town and
only come in when they're requested but
I don't believe that for a second
because one of the major competitive
factors between robotaxi companies is
going to be how quickly they can get to
their customers consider how impatient
people get while waiting for an elevator
there is no way in hell that people in
the future will want to wait 14 minutes
for a robo taxi pickup which is why the
self-driving car parking lots today are
right in the heart of San Francisco but
the future could be even worse there's
no cost to driving around most cities
gas taxes are usually the only thing
that even comes close to a user fee for
city streets but regardless the robo
taxi to the future will be electric and
charged at private facilities
as long as the roads are free to use
there is zero incentive for these
companies not to have Robo taxis
constantly circling the block so that
they can respond to customers as quickly
as possible and when these cars are
significantly less space efficient than
buses or trams that alone will result in
less space available in our cities but
it gets worse consider today a Suburban
parent who drops off one child at
elementary school another at high school
and then drives to work with
self-driving cars those kids will be
sent in their own Robo taxis so that one
car trip today will become three car
trips in the future this is already
happening in San Francisco and it will
only get worse it's great for kids to
have independent Mobility but we need to
do that without just putting more cars
on the
road in an earlier video I talked about
the problems that many European cities
have already experienced after the
introduction of 10-minute delivery
services
and there are stories today from door
Dash drivers who were called to pick up
trivially small orders like a single
tube of
toothpaste as Robo taxis become cheaper
and more convenient this is only going
to become more common they're going to
be delivering anything within a few
minutes with a car for every
delivery when cars became common people
didn't need to live near their work
anymore and cities started to sprawl as
more car dependent suburbs were built on
the periphery this resulted in huge
volumes of traffic funneled into
arterial roads and highways because
there were more cars driving longer
distances self-driving cars will only
make this worse when people are freed
from having to pay attention to the road
they'll be able to go through their
emails or take conference calls from
their autonomous vehicle so why live in
a suburb at all why not live in a
cottage in the middle of nowhere where
land is plentiful and taxes are cheap
this will result in an exponential
increase in the amount of vehicle miles
traveled with millions of cars driving
very long distances regularly and
putting even more strain on our
transportation system and it's going to
make the existing problem of financing
Suburban infrastructure even worse see
my strongtown series to learn how
suburbanization and car Centric
development is literally bankrupting
North American suburbs already but if
you believe in the marketing of
autonomous vehicles then this technology
will advance exponentially Vehicles will
communicate with each other to travel
efficiently autonomous pods will merge
seamlessly onto highspeed self-driving
highways for even higher throughput in
speeds and vehicles will be more
efficient than ever through platooning
or whatever in this vision of the future
the transportation problems of today
will seem laughably archaic and we will
achieve levels of efficiency we could
only dream of here's a marketing video
from Ford showing what they think the
city of the future will be like look at
all these problems with a modern city of
course these problems were caused by
people using their cars in the first
place but don't worry about that because
buying their new cars will fix
everything so it's fine look there are
ebikes and Parks futuristic trains less
parking people can cross the street
wherever they want and Magic crosswalks
will appear there are vacuum trains
pedestrian plazas blue skies and lots of
trees every single problem will be
solved what's not to like but before we
get too excited but our utopian
self-driving future it's worth looking
back at previous Promises of the
automobile industry at the 1939 New York
World's Fair General Motors presented
Futurama the high-tech city of the
future in the year
1960 this exhibit was absolutely huge
they had a ride that would take you over
the city and even a life-size model of
an urban neighborhood in Futurama car
traffic would be elim elated completely
with Advanced motorways these would be
separated from all other traffic and
allow cars to drive faster than ever
before pedestrians would be able to
comfortably walk through the city on
elevated walkways while car traffic was
safely whisked away on the roads below
but the reality was quite different the
motorways promised by Futurama were
built but they just induced demand for
more driving and more car ownership
which was the car industry's real
purpose in the first place of course
they wanted to sell more cars instead of
being the salvation of the city elevated
freeways divided and destroyed
neighborhoods they flooded city streets
with car traffic increased pollution and
left municipalities with massive tax
burdens and maintenance liabilities to
the point where many cities have spent
billions to remove Urban freeways in an
attempt to repair the
damage there are many accounts online
that show the destruction that happened
to American cities because of car
infrastructure and I'll leave some links
in the
description my point here is that new
transportation technology can and will
fundamentally change our cities
especially if there's money to be made
so we need to seriously consider how AVS
could negatively affect cities so that
we can prepare for them today as AV
technology improves it will start to
arrive in personal vehicles just like
with cars the first Mass adoption will
happen in Suburbia especially in the US
and Canada suburbanites spend too much
time sitting in traffic as it is and it
will allow those people to live even
farther away from the city where
property is even cheaper so it will
definitely be worth the cost for any
reasonably wealthy
suburbanite and designing AVS for
Suburban roads is a much easier problem
than for busy cities so they'll be
faster to Market too AVS will be proven
safer than human drivers so AV companies
will Lobby to have AV only Lanes
installed on highways and throughout the
suburbs for those who can't afford their
own autonomous vehicle Suburban
municipalities will subsidize Robo taxis
in place of public transit entire
Suburban neighborhoods will be built
that are only accessible by autonomous
vehicle which has the added benefit of
keeping any um undesirable people out
this is the next logical step to the
gated communities that are already
common across the US
suburbs will rapidly expand to consume
even more valuable land power lines
water pipes sewage pipes and all other
infrastructure will become even longer
and more spread out but there will be so
much money and debt flooding into
suburbs on the promise of building the
city of the future that nobody will stop
to think about it and besides the bills
to maintain it all are decades away in
other words literally exactly what
happened in the post-war suburbs of the
last century autonomous vehicle
companies may be making record profits
from suburbanites but the line must go
up so they'll look towards the cities
and their primary objective will be to
eliminate the
competition in the 1920s Los Angeles had
the largest electric street car Network
in the world but service declined
significantly as the street cars got
stuck in traffic behind cars and the
street cars couldn't compete with a
heavily subsidized Road and Highway
System private street car companies were
bought out by national city lines a
company that was financed by General
Motors and related companies and was
specifically founded with a goal of
tearing upstreet car lines throughout
the us because well-functioning public
transit is a threat to car
companies history is going to repeat
itself here the companies who finance
autonomous vehicles are going to do
everything in their power to cancel
Transit projects Lobby against funding
for public transportation and replace
public transit with their private Robo
tax
there will be autonomous bus Concepts
promised and some of these will go into
operation to replace today's buses and
TRS but the real money will be in
private AVS and Robo taxis Robo taxis
will be pitched as a more efficient form
of transportation by offering
door-to-door service and any train or
Transit lines will be converted to AV
Lanes but there's nothing more space
efficient than a train this 18 Lane
freeway in Toronto is over 100 m wide
but it moves fewer people per day than
this single subway line because trains
are so much more space efficient than
cars in the early 1900s the Brooklyn
Bridge in New York moved over
42,000 people per day but in the 1950s
the trolleys were removed to make way
for cars since then the Brooklyn Bridge
has never moved more than 180,000 people
per day well under half as many as when
there was public
transit the same thing is going to
happen to our cities with AVS the
decrease in space efficiency moving from
shared transit to private transportation
coupled with the massive increase in
demand for cheap subsidized AV rides
will result in a massive increase in the
number of vehicles in our cities AV
companies will Lobby for some roads to
be designated as autonomous only this
will be pitched as a way to increase
safety efficiency but the ultimate goal
will be to eliminate public transit and
human driving and get everybody to sign
up to an AV subscription instead here's
how a concept of this called Loop NYC
was pitched by a New York engineering
company a few years back in this video
they assigned certain streets in New
York to be self-driving only they claim
that this will be so much more efficient
that other streets could be blocked off
to cars completely and turned into a
giant linear Park but but AV companies
aren't going to be happy giving up any
roads as their success is dependent on
offering door-to-door service so AVS
will be required to go
everywhere they'll even argue that AVS
should also be allowed in pedestrian
areas because they're safer than human
drivers and will offer an important
service for people with mobility
issues when there's no price put on
driving competing Robo taxis will Circle
The Block in order to have the quickest
response times private AVS will drive
around automatically to get the cheapest
parking rates while their owners are at
work the parking lots that we were told
would become obsolete will be converted
to solar AV charging stations for both
private AVS and Robo taxis and they'll
jump between stations for whichever one
has the cheapest prices so despite what
the car company propaganda might show
you AVS are not going to let us replace
roads and parking lots with Parks
autonomous vehicle will demand even more
space in our cities and they're going to
get it the next problem will be
pedestrians as AVS become more common
people will realize they can cross the
street wherever they want because AVS
will always stop and there is no way
that AV companies are going to put up
with that they'll claim that people
crossing the street are crippling the
transportation system and they'll demand
that fences be put up along important
streets and
Roads Bamberg is a small town town in
the US state of South Carolina like
pretty much every American town they had
a traditional Main Street but this Main
Street also became the main Highway
through town and all of that downtown
activity and especially all those people
crossing the street was interfering with
the flow of car traffic so they decided
to widen the street and install fences
along the sidewalks to prevent people
from Crossing mid block after
construction was done car traffic moved
much more efficiently and with in a few
years every single shop in downtown
Bamberg went out of business and today
it looks like a ghost town because
believe it or not people don't enjoy
being on a cramped sidewalk next to
high-speed
traffic this was a monumentally stupid
idea of course but I bring this up
because before the project the director
of the Chamber of Commerce said that the
project will quote be a major boost to
the economy for the county and downtown
Bamberg there are a lot of people who
genuinely believe that if car traffic
moves more efficiently then businesses
will Thrive when the exact opposite is
true cars don't buy things people do so
if you make a place inhospitable to
people nobody will buy
anything expect the same thing to happen
with autonomous vehicles as the fences
go up there'll be no reason for AVS to
Drive slowly so they won't streets
everywhere will be just like downtown
Bamberg inhospitable places where people
won't want to be and street life will
slowly die with public transit human
drivers and pedestrians out of the way
AV companies will demand an end to speed
limits they'll argue that these
restrictions designed for human drivers
are Irrelevant for vehicles driven by a
computer this will result in a huge
increase in vehicle throughput and will
be considered a tremendous
success but when AVS are driven faster
pedestrian and cyclist fatalities will
increase AVS may have lightning fast
reaction times but at high speed the
laws of physics win every time now there
will be outcries when someone is killed
and people will demand to slow down AVS
to make them safer but history will
repeat itself again today cars are a
reality that we deal with just about
everywhere but when automobiles were
first introduced people did not want
them in their cities cars were clogging
up city streets and killing thousands of
people people every year by the 1920s
the general public was very anti-ar
several cities had plans to require
speed Governors on all cars entering the
city and they introduced High fines for
Dangerous driving but the automobile
industry was not about to go down
without a fight they fought to get
car-friendly politicians elected and
voted down any anti-car
legislation and did they do anything to
make their cars less likely to kill
people no of course not they invented
and spent Millions promoting the concept
of jaywalking to make it the fault of
the victims for not looking where they
were going this changed cities almost
overnight streets went from being a
common place for everyone to a place
exclusively for cars just a few decades
later the JW walking of the 21st century
will be the transponder that everyone
will be required to wear when walking
outside if they want to avoid being
killed by a car when someone is hit by
an AV people will ask well were they
wearing their transponder and the News
will report the victim was not wearing a
lar
reflector these faster cars will also
create more pollution and
noise cars are a major contributor to
pollution within cities air quality will
improve as cars transition to Electric
but electric cars will not solve this
problem because a major source of local
pollution from Cars comes from the
erosion of the tires brakes asphalt and
Road markings and all of these emissions
increase as cars get heavier and drive
at higher
speeds cars also create a lot of noise
pollution in cities and that is not just
uncomfortable it literally creates a
stress response that leads to physical
problems and I've talked about that in a
previous video there's a common belief
that electric cars will solve this noise
problem but that's not really true
because once a car goes above about 50
kmph the sound of the tires becomes
louder than the sound of the engine and
this gets worse as cars get heavier plus
the faster the car goes the louder this
noise becomes many cars in Oslo are
electric but it's still very loud on
this pedestrian bridge over the
highway with all of the extra
electronics and computers AVS will be
heavier than today's cars and they're
going to be driven faster too which will
make the air toxic near autonomous
vehicle highways and the noise from the
T on the road surface will be deafening
making these areas uncomfortable and
dangerous for anybody walking
nearby eventually AVS will consume every
Street in the city and push out every
other form of
transportation the final step will be to
remove traffic lights about a decade ago
I saw this video produced by the
University of Texas at Austin they
proposed a future protocol called aim
that would provide autonomous
intersection management for high-speed
inter sections without traffic lights
this is the animation that made me
really think twice about the future of
self-driving cars because when I looked
at it the first thing that crossed my
mind was huh it would really suck to
have to cross this intersection while
walking or
cycling of course there will be people
who protest and complain they won't want
their neighborhood being cut in half by
an AV highway but we can't have these
Lites denying us our transportation
Utopia as a compromise we'll be promised
pedestrian Bridges to keep neighborhoods
connected though due to cost cutting
only a few of them will actually get
built when highways came to New York
City they completely destroyed some
neighborhoods and separated others a
handful of pedestrian Bridges like this
one were built to reconnect
neighborhoods these bridges are awful
they require walking up long ramps they
feel like dirty concrete trenches and
they're really ugly the chain link fence
separates you from the high-speed
traffic below but the noise and
pollution from Cars is
unbearable these were clearly built to
benefit drivers by keeping pedestrians
out of the way and not for the benefit
of people
walking in the AV City you won't be able
to cross the street you'll need to go
out of your way to the nearest
pedestrian bridge walk up the ramp cross
the bridge and walk back down to where
you want to go all well enduring the
deafening sound and toxic air of the
high-speed traffic below this will be
the city of the future streets that are
completely consumed by autonomous
vehicles intersections that are
impossible to cross cities that are
carved up by self-driving expressways
creating islands that are infeasible to
leave on foot with air and noise
pollution so bad it makes travel outside
unbearable we'll have a transportation
system that consists entirely of
autonomous vehicles so that you won't be
able to do anything go to work go to
school even buy food for for your family
without paying an AV company to get you
there and once every other form of
transportation is either eliminated or
INF feasible the autonomous vehicle
companies will ramp up prices they'll be
able to charge whatever they want
because we'll have no
Alternatives so what can we do about
it well this brings me to my fundamental
issue with the entire concept of
self-driving cars I grew up in a car
dependent city called London London
Ontario Canada and despite its TS River
Oxford Street and Covent Garden Market
it's nothing like real London a a kind
of fake London if you will when I arrive
in Fake London by train I'm on the side
of a high-speed stro across from a
surface parking lot there isn't much
left of downtown and my only option to
get anywhere is a taxi the city is very
spread out and designed almost
exclusively for cars bus service is
highly unreliable and slow and there's
no way I would feel safe enough to ride
a bike here I have to drive pretty much
everywhere to do pretty much anything
which I got to say kind of sucks too
many people drive really dangerously and
there are regular news stories about
people being killed in car crashes so
when I'm sitting on a giant Strode stuck
in traffic the idea of having the car
take care of all this boring dangerous
driving seems pretty great but then I
think about about
utre utre is a city in the middle of the
Netherlands and I have to go there
fairly regularly for one reason or
another the population of UT is very
similar to that of fake London but
otherwise these cities are very very
different so you're probably thinking
that it's almost comical to compare UT
to London right I mean it seems
ridiculous because these cities have
almost nothing in common and yet 100
years ago they were pretty similar sure
the architecture was different but the
fundamental design of the city was
pretty comparable both were compact
walkable cities full of mixed use
neighborhoods and connected by street
cars because both cities were founded
long before automobiles were invented
over the 20th century both cities
embraced the automobile and both cities
built wide roads and highways utre
filled in a canal in their city center
and turned it into a highway and London
bulldozed a neighborhood to build a wide
Road straight into downtown UT and
London both even bulldozed part of their
City Center to build a Suburban style
shopping mall and these malls were both
the first of their kind in their
respective countries utre was about a
decade behind London but otherwise these
cities were on exactly the same path
that is until about the 1990s when utre
decided to change course due to Growing
concerns about the negative impact of
car Centric development they made a fund
FAL decision to make the city friendlier
to people walking and cycling to reduce
car traffic and to create better public
spaces the highway around the city
center was turned back into a
canal you'd never know that this used to
be a
highway and today that downtown shopping
center is connected directly to a new
train station via a pedestrianized area
and closely integrated with the rest of
the city on the other side
it's such an incredible difference to
arrive in this place by train compared
to fake London despite having almost the
same population as my hometown it hosts
the busiest train station in the
Netherlands transporting over 200,000
people per day with over a th000 daily
departures on National and international
trains there are hundreds of
destinations within walking distance of
the station and there are great
connections to other forms of public
transit including this new tram system
underneath the station is the world's
largest bicycle parking garage with
spaces for over 12,000 bicycles and I
can pick up one of the hundreds of
rental bicycles using my Transit card
and cycle to any
destination I can cycle anywhere I want
quickly and easily and because of the
highquality infrastructure I never feel
unsafe it also helps that car volumes
are low and so are the speed limits near
the train station is this street
accessible only to walking cycling and
public transit this is one of the
busiest cycling pass in the world and I
probably see more people cycling in 5
minutes here than I have in my entire
life in Fake
London walking around the city is also
convenient and comfortable the streets
are lined with interesting shops and
restaurants and there isn't a surface
parking lot in sight anymore there are
many nice residential neighborhoods and
it's remarkably quiet too because as
I've realized over the years cities
aren't loud cars are loud I don't feel
unsafe walking and cycling here so the
safety Promises of autonomous vehicles
don't really seem to matter much there
isn't a lot of traffic because there are
viable alternatives to driving people
aren't forced to drive here so the only
people in cars are those who need to
drive or those who really want to drive
self-driving cars are supposed to
provide Mobility to children the
disabled and the elderly and yet I see
all of those people getting around just
fine in usak because universal access to
Mobility isn't a fundamental issue it's
a problem caused by car
dependency would this guy be better off
in a self-driving car maybe I didn't ask
him but it's not like he's unable to get
around independently here like would be
the case where I'm from now utre isn't
perfect and the city still shows the
scars of that 1960s car Centric
development but it also just doesn't
have most of the problems that
autonomous vehicles are supposed to
solve and yet they did it without any
advanced technology without spending
hundreds of billions of dollars and
without letting their City be controlled
by the whims of multi-billion dollar
corporations either if everybody here
was in self-driving cars this place
would be much much worse so it's seems
what we really need is not driverless
cars it's carless
drivers I think UT and cities like it
can provide a template for what we
should be doing to prepare for
self-driving cars we need to limit where
cars can go and that includes autonomous
vehicles UT has many places that are off
limits to cars but Motor Vehicles are
still extremely useful sometimes so
access is still provided for delivery
trucks emergency vehicles and people
with
disabilities we need fewer cars in
cities so we should definitely tear down
Urban freeways that divide neighborhoods
and turn the space into Parks shops and
houses cars should go around cities and
not through them we should make it
impossible to drive through the middle
of the City by car the most direct route
should only be accessible by walking
cycling in public transit enforced by
modal filters we also need to lower
speed limits now to make make the street
safer today but also to reduce noise and
pollution lowering speed limits can
sometimes be controversial but after
it's done there is nearly Universal
support to keep them low so let's do it
now before AVS take a foothold we need
to remove parking especially surface
parking lots we're never going to be
able to charge for parking once cars can
dr
posted by k3ninho at 1:00 PM on November 10 [1 favorite]
Hete's some via the subtitles at dowbloadyoutubesubtitles.com for v=040ejWnFkj0.
Click for subtitles as transcript. (It's a 54 minute video, so that's a lot of scrolling.)
a lot has been said about the future of
self-driving cars some people take a
very negative position claiming that
autonomous vehicles are a pipe dream and
will never become a reality they're just
another example of the overhyped
nonsense that's typical of tech
companies these days and that may be
true but in several US cities today you
can literally open an app select your
destination and a car with nobody in it
will pick you up and drive you there
automatically so self driving cars are
here today which leads to the other kind
of commentary I often see online that
self-driving cars are real they will be
coming to more cities soon and they will
solve all of our transportation problems
they'll make the road safer they'll
eliminate traffic congestion they'll be
environmentally friendly they'll provide
Mobility to everyone and our cities will
be better than ever I actually disagree
with both of these positions which is
why I wanted to make this video because
I do believe that self-driving cars are
real and they will be in every city in
the near future the technology is
getting better every day and if these
improvements continue on this track they
will fundamentally destroy the fabric of
our
cities there is a cautious optimism
among many urbanists about self-driving
cars after all the majority of problems
within cities are caused by cars traffic
pollution noise dangerous streets and
there never seems to be enough space
available for sidewalks bike Lanes Parks
or anything else because it's all been
turned into wide roads and parking lots
anybody who has tried to get around
without a car in a car Centric City
knows that human drivers can be really
scary especially when they're speeding
or driving distracted which happens way
too often so having cars driven by
computers can't possibly be worse than
what we have now right and it is
possible that with the right incentives
and regulations that could be our future
but given the course we're on I believe
that future is increasingly unlikely
especially when you consider the history
of how automobiles destroyed cities in
the 20th century but also the effects of
money and
capital it's estimated that over $60
billion has already been invested into
the development of autonomous vehicles
so there is a lot of money riding on
this technology and therefore a lot of
pressure to get self-driving cars to
Market as soon as possible when people
see these vehicles cruising around the
Streets of San Francisco They Might
believe that this technology is right
around the corner you can go there right
now and see them dropping off passengers
they follow the speed limit and appear
to drive cautiously and it's amazing to
see that there's nobody in the driver's
seat but that doesn't mean they're
always driven by
computer as of last November Crews
confirmed that their Robo taxis were
required Human Assistance every 4 to 5
miles I don't know how often this is
needed today but you don't have to watch
these cars for very long to see that
humans definitely still need to take
remote control sometimes this stupid
Robo taxi got stuck behind a
construction toilet trailer until
someone in the call center could steer
it around this one sat here for several
light cycles because it didn't think it
could turn right the drivers behind it
eventually gave up waiting and just
drove around now you might be wondering
about these remote assistant agents who
take control who are these people where
are they located how much are they paid
what are the working conditions like but
never mind all that it's a technological
Miracle okay just shut up and get in the
car now of course this technology will
inevitably get better but nobody knows
how long it will take to sort out the
long tale of rare occurrences that a
self-driving car will encounter in a
busy City and as any experienced product
manager will tell you the first 90% of a
project takes 90% of the time and the
last 10% of the project will take the
other
90% the technology is Advanced but
fundamentally self-driving cars are
stupid they're mindless they make a
bunch of dumb mistakes recently in this
parking lot for self-driving cars whmo
vehicles started driving in circles and
randomly honking at each
[Music]
other this happened for days and this
particular video was taken at 4:00 a.m.
the people who live next door were not
impressed there have been dozens of
official reports of driverless cars
getting in the way of rescue operations
from blocking ambulances to crashing
into fir trucks but it gets worse last
October a woman was hit by a car in San
Francisco driven by a human driver and
knocked into the path of a Cruz Robo
taxi Cruz said the vehicle quote break
aggressively to minimize impact and
while the robo taxi couldn't stop fast
enough to avoid hitting the woman it
still reacted faster than any human
could so that's a win for self-driving
cars right except that the woman then
fell under the car so as far as the robo
taxi was concerned she was gone so it
continued to drive dragging her
underneath a key detail that Crews
initially tried to hide from the press
and
Regulators it's a first for police and
fire departments involving a driver car
the victim was found to be under the
left rear wheel of the vehicle
thankfully the woman survived and cruise
cars were taken off the roads but this
is a scary example of how these cars
will make new mistakes that we haven't
even considered yet they are not
intelligent they don't even have the
object permanence of a toddler but that
hasn't stopped them from being beta
tested on public roads and the citizens
of these cities did not agree to this
several groups in California have
protested against being the involuntary
test subjects of multi-billion dollar
tech companies and a wh Mo car was even
set on fire earlier this year
self-driving cars have caused a lot of
problems in San Francisco wayo cars in
San Francisco reportedly caused a big
traffic jam just as Baseball fans were
leaving Oracle Park Monday afternoon a
KTVU viewers shared this video you're
looking at showing two self-driving cars
stopped in in the middle of the Embark
of daral the advocacy group safe Street
Rebel has published video evidence of
self-driving cars running red lights
cutting off drivers cutting off
pedestrians clogging up intersections
blocking streets blocking public transit
parking in bike lanes and uh what the
hell is this car doing to that old woman
so the idea that these cars will always
obey the rules of the road is a
fantasy safe Street Rebel ALS also
organizes events like the week of cone
since self-driving cars are programmed
to avoid traffic cones at all costs one
of the best way to incapacitate one is
to put a traffic cone on its Hood this
is called coning and it's [ __ ]
hilarious I'm sure these Mega
corporations will Lobby to make this a
criminal offense so do it now while you
still can safe Street Rebel does a lot
of great advocacy work that goes beyond
reigning in tech companies so definitely
check them out if you live in or near
near San Francisco I'll leave a link in
the
description these protests may slow
adoption but let's face it there is no
way in hell we're going to stop these
things from coming to our cities when
there are hundreds of billions of
dollars on the line and to be clear most
of these incidents would not have even
happened if the self-driving car
companies still had Safety Drivers like
they used to but they're under so much
pressure to deliver that they'd rather
[ __ ] up the city and even potentially
kill people rather than to admit that
the technology isn't ready yet tech
companies proudly say that they move
fast and break things and maybe that
broken thing will be your spine under a
robo taxi but that's a risk they're
willing to take self-driving car
companies have already lobbied
politicians to allow them to operate
based only on self-certification and
they've successfully stopped laws that
require them to report extensive safety
data recent L California passed a bill
that says police can't even ticket
self-driving car companies when their
cars violate traffic
laws it may be that eventually on
average self-driving cars will be safer
than human drivers in the future but it
is incredibly naive to believe that they
will not introduce new safety problems
of their own a self-driving car will try
to avoid hitting people and objects and
there are dozens of sensors to make sure
that doesn't happen but these sensors
are not infallible and they require
interpretation by
software it's important for self-driving
cars not to crash into things that are
there but it's also important that they
don't stop for things that aren't like
this Tesla in self-driving mode that
suddenly came to a stop on the highway
and caused an8 car pile up you don't
want a self-driving car to stop just
because there's a bit of garbage blown
onto the road or it detect something
that won't cross the path of the vehicle
anyway so the software needs to evaluate
object that it
detects the first person to ever be
killed by a self-driving car was a woman
in Tempe Arizona in
2018 she was crossing this road at night
while pushing a bicycle and was hit by a
modified Volvo SUV driven autonomously
by the automated driving system
developed by Uber so why didn't all of
this advanced technology prevent killing
her it's not that the car didn't detect
her it's just that it didn't think she
was anything worth stopping
for the crash report from the NTSB
provides a detailed explanation the car
flipped between identifying her as a
vehicle to a bicycle to a general other
category sometimes it detected her as
being in another Lane and other times as
a static object that wasn't moving the
software didn't consider her to be an
important object that was going to cross
the path of the SUV until 1.2 seconds
before the crash when it was too late to
stop without killing her so when a
self-driving car car starts driving
towards you you better hope it hasn't
detected you as
other but all this talk about sensors
and self-driving obus skates the real
root cause of this crash which is the
atrocious state of American traffic
engineering this area is designed like a
freeway with a high speed limit and
almost no accommodations for people
walking despite being directly between a
rail station and hiking trails at the
time of the crash the median had a paved
Road way designed only to be used by
cars if one of the bridges was closed
but it clearly looked like a walking
path and it was regularly used by people
crossing this road instead of any actual
pedestrian infrastructure the city just
put up these used crosswalk signs that
are still there today it's disgraceful
that Traffic Engineers put up these
signs in a natural place where people
would want to cross the road instead of
you know actually building a crosswalk
here but what's worse is that in 2018 it
wasn't even physically possible to walk
to the crosswalk because of the trees
and Greenery that had been planted here
since the crash the solution has been to
turn the brick roadway into a rough
Stone path that is hostile to
pedestrians but they've now cut a hole
through the cacti so that it is at least
theoretically possible to reach the
crosswalk now though you still have to
walk over 200 M out of your way plus the
time it takes to wait for your turn to
cross this highway American traffic
engine Engineers routinely bend over
backwards to make driving as convenient
as possible while making these places
actively hostile to pedestrians than
blame the pedestrians when they're hit
by a car in the US around 42,000 people
are killed in car crashes every year and
hundreds of thousands are seriously
injured sometimes with debilitating
injuries that will affect them for the
rest of their lives so it's not
surprising that the most prominent
feature promised by these American
self-driving cars companies is safety
but the US also has some of the most
dangerous roads in the developed world
the most deadly kind of Road in the US
is the Strode a road designed for
high-speed travel that also tries to act
as a destination strods are rare in
other countries especially inside of
cities but they are all over the US and
Canada the nonprofit organization strong
towns has been warning about the dangers
of this kind of Road design for over a
decade and I have a previous video about
strods if you'd like to learn more there
has been Decades of research into road
safety and we know how to make the road
safer such as the vision zero method
developed in Sweden in the
1990s in fact if the US had roads as
safe as seden they would cut their Road
fatalities by over
80% without any new technology at all
but many of these design changes require
slowing or restricting cars and that's a
step too far for for the US there's no
money to be made in making the street
safer so the only solution to the
dangers caused by the old cars has to be
buying new cars self-driving car
companies do not care about Road Safety
they care about selling cars and
Technology they care about safety in so
much as it allows them to sell cars the
moment they can convince Regulators in
the general public that their cars are
safe enough they will stop caring about
safety so you can expect the messaging
to pretty quickly go from preventing
Road deaths to being yeah sure they kill
people but our marketing department says
it's less often than human drivers would
so it's fine and even if they are safer
than American drivers on American roads
the rest of the world is going to get
these cars whether we want them or not
and that's an interesting thing to
consider because right now these
vehicles are being trained in some of
the most car Centric places on Earth the
first locations were UND notably chosen
because they have very good weather but
I guarantee you that Phoenix Arizona was
also a top choice because it is
literally like driving on easy mode the
roads are insanely wide there are almost
no restrictions on where cars can go
it's made up of square grid blocks a
mile on each side and pretty much
everybody drives everywhere all the time
already to say that Phoenix is car
dependent is a massive understatement if
anthropomorphic cars could design cities
they would design Phoenix it's also one
of the most dangerous places for
pedestrians in the entire developed
world but don't worry about that
self-driving cars will fix
everything San Francisco is certainly
more urban there are people who walk and
cycle and there are public transit
Vehicles as well but I've lived in the
Bay Area and I can tell you that even
San Francisco is pretty car-centric and
carf friendly compared to most cities in
Europe which I think is going to be a
problem when this technology is rolled
out internationally these cars are
trained to drive like Americans on
American roads where cars are considered
Superior and above all other forms of
transportation have you seen an American
when they try to drive in Europe for the
first time it's not pretty of course
these tech companies could spend years
retraining their vehicles to drive like
Europeans on European streets but you
and I both know that's not going to
happen they're going to set American
trained cars loose on Europe European
streets I hope I'm wrong but I wouldn't
be surprised if European cities are
pressured to americanize their streets
to make them more self-driving friendly
which brings us to another potential
issue with these cars they are not so
much programmed as they are trained they
learned how to drive by monitoring what
real human drivers did through millions
of miles of driving so let's say that in
the future a city wants to change the
way their streets work to improve safety
to speed up public transit or to make
more room for walking and cycling
whatever it won't be enough to just put
up a sign and update the rules of the
road governments will need to convince
every self-driving car company to
retrain their cars and given that these
are multi-billion dollar International
corporations with an army of lobbyists
How likely do you think it is that those
changes will go through this could
result in our cities getting locked into
to what they are today with any new
changes being dictated by car companies
which I guarantee you is not going to
favor anything that results in fewer
cars of course there are a lot of
problems with our current transportation
system but I am skeptical that
self-driving cars will truly solve any
of them because apart from the supposed
safety claims when you boil it down
self-driving cars are really just
promising to be cheaper taxis yeah
they're not driven by a human or at
least not driven by a human who is
currently in the car with you but
otherwise they're just cheaper taxis
right like do you seriously believe that
all of our Urban transportation problems
would be solved tomorrow if only taxis
were cheaper and I'm even skeptical
about the cheaper part we saw this
happened with Uber and Lyft when app
requested taxi sorry I mean ride sharing
was introduced Uber was cheap that is
when the venture capitalist money was
flowing in fact it was so cheap that
several cities in the US reduced
investment in public transit in favor of
subsidizing ride share rides and it
worked for a while but taking an Uber
isn't cheap anymore and I'll leave a
link to this great article with an
analysis of why those price increases
can't be explained by an increase in
costs ride share legislation or
inflation they raised prices because the
owners and investors of those companies
wanted a big return on their Investments
the exact same thing is playing out now
with self-driving cars hundreds of
billions of venture capital are flowing
into the development of autonomous
vehicles and companies like wh are using
that money to make the robo taxi rides
price competitive to traditional
taxis and I I find it wild that people
online will unironically say things like
in the future AVS will be cheaper than
taxis because there's no driver to pay
like do you honestly believe that the
prices that companies charge are based
on what they cost to deliver of course
they aren't they charge as much as
possible to maximize profits and once
they've eliminated or colluded with the
competition they can charge whatever
they want and I shouldn't even need to
say this but turning your transportation
system over to a handful of
multi-billion dollar corporations does
not result in good outcomes for anybody
except the owners of those
corporations it's commonly claim that
self-driving cars will reduce the amount
of cars on the road and eliminate
parking lots uh the idea is that you
will be dropped off at the door by a
self-driving car and you won't need to
park and that's true but you can
literally do that today right you could
just take a taxi to work every day
instead of owning a car but very few
people actually do this sure it's
expensive to take taxis everywhere of
course but even wealthy people don't do
this because people just like owning
their own stuff and being in their own
car there's this vague promise that your
car could earn extra money for you as a
taxi while you're at work but how many
people want their private car to end up
looking and smelling like the inside of
a taxi so those cars are going to need
to park somewhere and their owners will
want them park nearby so that they don't
take too long to arrive when they're
ready to go and you can forget about
ever charging for parking because if
it's cheaper to just let your car cruise
around the block while you're shopping
or at work then that's what people will
do another common claim is that these
cars will allow Universal Mobility to
everyone especially the disabled but
many people with disabilities require
help from others to get in and out of a
vehicle or to secure a wheel chair so an
attendant will likely be needed on board
anyway and given that you need a credit
card and a modern smartphone to book a
robo taxy this puts it Out Of Reach of
many people sure the rich Boomer with a
bad hip will be taken care of but they
can already take a taxi today this is
really just an extension of the often
repeated myth that cars are the only
transportation that works for disabled
people and that as long as you have cars
disabled people are taken care of this
is a great article by Disability
Advocates about how self-driving cars
are a distraction to the solutions that
they actually need and I'll leave a link
to it in the
description but of all of the claims
made by proponents of self-driving cars
the one that I find most ridiculous is
the idea that they will reduce traffic
ingestion there is absolutely no reason
to believe that this is true and lots of
historical evidence to suggest that it
is not every single time that we have
done anything to make Transportation
cheaper or more convenient the
inevitable outcome is that people travel
more often and they travel longer
distances there is Decades of
well-documented evidence that every time
we widen roads or build new highways it
increases the amount of driving and I
talked about that in more detail in my
video about induced demand when Uber and
Lyft came to cities they also claimed
that they would reduce traffic
congestion but the exact opposite
happened and vehicle miles traveled
increased significantly
this will only become worse with Robo
taxis because people will take them even
more often than they do Ubers today
especially while they're heavily
subsidized I've seen some people claim
that Robo taxis will reduce the number
of cars in cities because they will park
in parking lots in the edge of town and
only come in when they're requested but
I don't believe that for a second
because one of the major competitive
factors between robotaxi companies is
going to be how quickly they can get to
their customers consider how impatient
people get while waiting for an elevator
there is no way in hell that people in
the future will want to wait 14 minutes
for a robo taxi pickup which is why the
self-driving car parking lots today are
right in the heart of San Francisco but
the future could be even worse there's
no cost to driving around most cities
gas taxes are usually the only thing
that even comes close to a user fee for
city streets but regardless the robo
taxi to the future will be electric and
charged at private facilities
as long as the roads are free to use
there is zero incentive for these
companies not to have Robo taxis
constantly circling the block so that
they can respond to customers as quickly
as possible and when these cars are
significantly less space efficient than
buses or trams that alone will result in
less space available in our cities but
it gets worse consider today a Suburban
parent who drops off one child at
elementary school another at high school
and then drives to work with
self-driving cars those kids will be
sent in their own Robo taxis so that one
car trip today will become three car
trips in the future this is already
happening in San Francisco and it will
only get worse it's great for kids to
have independent Mobility but we need to
do that without just putting more cars
on the
road in an earlier video I talked about
the problems that many European cities
have already experienced after the
introduction of 10-minute delivery
services
and there are stories today from door
Dash drivers who were called to pick up
trivially small orders like a single
tube of
toothpaste as Robo taxis become cheaper
and more convenient this is only going
to become more common they're going to
be delivering anything within a few
minutes with a car for every
delivery when cars became common people
didn't need to live near their work
anymore and cities started to sprawl as
more car dependent suburbs were built on
the periphery this resulted in huge
volumes of traffic funneled into
arterial roads and highways because
there were more cars driving longer
distances self-driving cars will only
make this worse when people are freed
from having to pay attention to the road
they'll be able to go through their
emails or take conference calls from
their autonomous vehicle so why live in
a suburb at all why not live in a
cottage in the middle of nowhere where
land is plentiful and taxes are cheap
this will result in an exponential
increase in the amount of vehicle miles
traveled with millions of cars driving
very long distances regularly and
putting even more strain on our
transportation system and it's going to
make the existing problem of financing
Suburban infrastructure even worse see
my strongtown series to learn how
suburbanization and car Centric
development is literally bankrupting
North American suburbs already but if
you believe in the marketing of
autonomous vehicles then this technology
will advance exponentially Vehicles will
communicate with each other to travel
efficiently autonomous pods will merge
seamlessly onto highspeed self-driving
highways for even higher throughput in
speeds and vehicles will be more
efficient than ever through platooning
or whatever in this vision of the future
the transportation problems of today
will seem laughably archaic and we will
achieve levels of efficiency we could
only dream of here's a marketing video
from Ford showing what they think the
city of the future will be like look at
all these problems with a modern city of
course these problems were caused by
people using their cars in the first
place but don't worry about that because
buying their new cars will fix
everything so it's fine look there are
ebikes and Parks futuristic trains less
parking people can cross the street
wherever they want and Magic crosswalks
will appear there are vacuum trains
pedestrian plazas blue skies and lots of
trees every single problem will be
solved what's not to like but before we
get too excited but our utopian
self-driving future it's worth looking
back at previous Promises of the
automobile industry at the 1939 New York
World's Fair General Motors presented
Futurama the high-tech city of the
future in the year
1960 this exhibit was absolutely huge
they had a ride that would take you over
the city and even a life-size model of
an urban neighborhood in Futurama car
traffic would be elim elated completely
with Advanced motorways these would be
separated from all other traffic and
allow cars to drive faster than ever
before pedestrians would be able to
comfortably walk through the city on
elevated walkways while car traffic was
safely whisked away on the roads below
but the reality was quite different the
motorways promised by Futurama were
built but they just induced demand for
more driving and more car ownership
which was the car industry's real
purpose in the first place of course
they wanted to sell more cars instead of
being the salvation of the city elevated
freeways divided and destroyed
neighborhoods they flooded city streets
with car traffic increased pollution and
left municipalities with massive tax
burdens and maintenance liabilities to
the point where many cities have spent
billions to remove Urban freeways in an
attempt to repair the
damage there are many accounts online
that show the destruction that happened
to American cities because of car
infrastructure and I'll leave some links
in the
description my point here is that new
transportation technology can and will
fundamentally change our cities
especially if there's money to be made
so we need to seriously consider how AVS
could negatively affect cities so that
we can prepare for them today as AV
technology improves it will start to
arrive in personal vehicles just like
with cars the first Mass adoption will
happen in Suburbia especially in the US
and Canada suburbanites spend too much
time sitting in traffic as it is and it
will allow those people to live even
farther away from the city where
property is even cheaper so it will
definitely be worth the cost for any
reasonably wealthy
suburbanite and designing AVS for
Suburban roads is a much easier problem
than for busy cities so they'll be
faster to Market too AVS will be proven
safer than human drivers so AV companies
will Lobby to have AV only Lanes
installed on highways and throughout the
suburbs for those who can't afford their
own autonomous vehicle Suburban
municipalities will subsidize Robo taxis
in place of public transit entire
Suburban neighborhoods will be built
that are only accessible by autonomous
vehicle which has the added benefit of
keeping any um undesirable people out
this is the next logical step to the
gated communities that are already
common across the US
suburbs will rapidly expand to consume
even more valuable land power lines
water pipes sewage pipes and all other
infrastructure will become even longer
and more spread out but there will be so
much money and debt flooding into
suburbs on the promise of building the
city of the future that nobody will stop
to think about it and besides the bills
to maintain it all are decades away in
other words literally exactly what
happened in the post-war suburbs of the
last century autonomous vehicle
companies may be making record profits
from suburbanites but the line must go
up so they'll look towards the cities
and their primary objective will be to
eliminate the
competition in the 1920s Los Angeles had
the largest electric street car Network
in the world but service declined
significantly as the street cars got
stuck in traffic behind cars and the
street cars couldn't compete with a
heavily subsidized Road and Highway
System private street car companies were
bought out by national city lines a
company that was financed by General
Motors and related companies and was
specifically founded with a goal of
tearing upstreet car lines throughout
the us because well-functioning public
transit is a threat to car
companies history is going to repeat
itself here the companies who finance
autonomous vehicles are going to do
everything in their power to cancel
Transit projects Lobby against funding
for public transportation and replace
public transit with their private Robo
tax
there will be autonomous bus Concepts
promised and some of these will go into
operation to replace today's buses and
TRS but the real money will be in
private AVS and Robo taxis Robo taxis
will be pitched as a more efficient form
of transportation by offering
door-to-door service and any train or
Transit lines will be converted to AV
Lanes but there's nothing more space
efficient than a train this 18 Lane
freeway in Toronto is over 100 m wide
but it moves fewer people per day than
this single subway line because trains
are so much more space efficient than
cars in the early 1900s the Brooklyn
Bridge in New York moved over
42,000 people per day but in the 1950s
the trolleys were removed to make way
for cars since then the Brooklyn Bridge
has never moved more than 180,000 people
per day well under half as many as when
there was public
transit the same thing is going to
happen to our cities with AVS the
decrease in space efficiency moving from
shared transit to private transportation
coupled with the massive increase in
demand for cheap subsidized AV rides
will result in a massive increase in the
number of vehicles in our cities AV
companies will Lobby for some roads to
be designated as autonomous only this
will be pitched as a way to increase
safety efficiency but the ultimate goal
will be to eliminate public transit and
human driving and get everybody to sign
up to an AV subscription instead here's
how a concept of this called Loop NYC
was pitched by a New York engineering
company a few years back in this video
they assigned certain streets in New
York to be self-driving only they claim
that this will be so much more efficient
that other streets could be blocked off
to cars completely and turned into a
giant linear Park but but AV companies
aren't going to be happy giving up any
roads as their success is dependent on
offering door-to-door service so AVS
will be required to go
everywhere they'll even argue that AVS
should also be allowed in pedestrian
areas because they're safer than human
drivers and will offer an important
service for people with mobility
issues when there's no price put on
driving competing Robo taxis will Circle
The Block in order to have the quickest
response times private AVS will drive
around automatically to get the cheapest
parking rates while their owners are at
work the parking lots that we were told
would become obsolete will be converted
to solar AV charging stations for both
private AVS and Robo taxis and they'll
jump between stations for whichever one
has the cheapest prices so despite what
the car company propaganda might show
you AVS are not going to let us replace
roads and parking lots with Parks
autonomous vehicle will demand even more
space in our cities and they're going to
get it the next problem will be
pedestrians as AVS become more common
people will realize they can cross the
street wherever they want because AVS
will always stop and there is no way
that AV companies are going to put up
with that they'll claim that people
crossing the street are crippling the
transportation system and they'll demand
that fences be put up along important
streets and
Roads Bamberg is a small town town in
the US state of South Carolina like
pretty much every American town they had
a traditional Main Street but this Main
Street also became the main Highway
through town and all of that downtown
activity and especially all those people
crossing the street was interfering with
the flow of car traffic so they decided
to widen the street and install fences
along the sidewalks to prevent people
from Crossing mid block after
construction was done car traffic moved
much more efficiently and with in a few
years every single shop in downtown
Bamberg went out of business and today
it looks like a ghost town because
believe it or not people don't enjoy
being on a cramped sidewalk next to
high-speed
traffic this was a monumentally stupid
idea of course but I bring this up
because before the project the director
of the Chamber of Commerce said that the
project will quote be a major boost to
the economy for the county and downtown
Bamberg there are a lot of people who
genuinely believe that if car traffic
moves more efficiently then businesses
will Thrive when the exact opposite is
true cars don't buy things people do so
if you make a place inhospitable to
people nobody will buy
anything expect the same thing to happen
with autonomous vehicles as the fences
go up there'll be no reason for AVS to
Drive slowly so they won't streets
everywhere will be just like downtown
Bamberg inhospitable places where people
won't want to be and street life will
slowly die with public transit human
drivers and pedestrians out of the way
AV companies will demand an end to speed
limits they'll argue that these
restrictions designed for human drivers
are Irrelevant for vehicles driven by a
computer this will result in a huge
increase in vehicle throughput and will
be considered a tremendous
success but when AVS are driven faster
pedestrian and cyclist fatalities will
increase AVS may have lightning fast
reaction times but at high speed the
laws of physics win every time now there
will be outcries when someone is killed
and people will demand to slow down AVS
to make them safer but history will
repeat itself again today cars are a
reality that we deal with just about
everywhere but when automobiles were
first introduced people did not want
them in their cities cars were clogging
up city streets and killing thousands of
people people every year by the 1920s
the general public was very anti-ar
several cities had plans to require
speed Governors on all cars entering the
city and they introduced High fines for
Dangerous driving but the automobile
industry was not about to go down
without a fight they fought to get
car-friendly politicians elected and
voted down any anti-car
legislation and did they do anything to
make their cars less likely to kill
people no of course not they invented
and spent Millions promoting the concept
of jaywalking to make it the fault of
the victims for not looking where they
were going this changed cities almost
overnight streets went from being a
common place for everyone to a place
exclusively for cars just a few decades
later the JW walking of the 21st century
will be the transponder that everyone
will be required to wear when walking
outside if they want to avoid being
killed by a car when someone is hit by
an AV people will ask well were they
wearing their transponder and the News
will report the victim was not wearing a
lar
reflector these faster cars will also
create more pollution and
noise cars are a major contributor to
pollution within cities air quality will
improve as cars transition to Electric
but electric cars will not solve this
problem because a major source of local
pollution from Cars comes from the
erosion of the tires brakes asphalt and
Road markings and all of these emissions
increase as cars get heavier and drive
at higher
speeds cars also create a lot of noise
pollution in cities and that is not just
uncomfortable it literally creates a
stress response that leads to physical
problems and I've talked about that in a
previous video there's a common belief
that electric cars will solve this noise
problem but that's not really true
because once a car goes above about 50
kmph the sound of the tires becomes
louder than the sound of the engine and
this gets worse as cars get heavier plus
the faster the car goes the louder this
noise becomes many cars in Oslo are
electric but it's still very loud on
this pedestrian bridge over the
highway with all of the extra
electronics and computers AVS will be
heavier than today's cars and they're
going to be driven faster too which will
make the air toxic near autonomous
vehicle highways and the noise from the
T on the road surface will be deafening
making these areas uncomfortable and
dangerous for anybody walking
nearby eventually AVS will consume every
Street in the city and push out every
other form of
transportation the final step will be to
remove traffic lights about a decade ago
I saw this video produced by the
University of Texas at Austin they
proposed a future protocol called aim
that would provide autonomous
intersection management for high-speed
inter sections without traffic lights
this is the animation that made me
really think twice about the future of
self-driving cars because when I looked
at it the first thing that crossed my
mind was huh it would really suck to
have to cross this intersection while
walking or
cycling of course there will be people
who protest and complain they won't want
their neighborhood being cut in half by
an AV highway but we can't have these
Lites denying us our transportation
Utopia as a compromise we'll be promised
pedestrian Bridges to keep neighborhoods
connected though due to cost cutting
only a few of them will actually get
built when highways came to New York
City they completely destroyed some
neighborhoods and separated others a
handful of pedestrian Bridges like this
one were built to reconnect
neighborhoods these bridges are awful
they require walking up long ramps they
feel like dirty concrete trenches and
they're really ugly the chain link fence
separates you from the high-speed
traffic below but the noise and
pollution from Cars is
unbearable these were clearly built to
benefit drivers by keeping pedestrians
out of the way and not for the benefit
of people
walking in the AV City you won't be able
to cross the street you'll need to go
out of your way to the nearest
pedestrian bridge walk up the ramp cross
the bridge and walk back down to where
you want to go all well enduring the
deafening sound and toxic air of the
high-speed traffic below this will be
the city of the future streets that are
completely consumed by autonomous
vehicles intersections that are
impossible to cross cities that are
carved up by self-driving expressways
creating islands that are infeasible to
leave on foot with air and noise
pollution so bad it makes travel outside
unbearable we'll have a transportation
system that consists entirely of
autonomous vehicles so that you won't be
able to do anything go to work go to
school even buy food for for your family
without paying an AV company to get you
there and once every other form of
transportation is either eliminated or
INF feasible the autonomous vehicle
companies will ramp up prices they'll be
able to charge whatever they want
because we'll have no
Alternatives so what can we do about
it well this brings me to my fundamental
issue with the entire concept of
self-driving cars I grew up in a car
dependent city called London London
Ontario Canada and despite its TS River
Oxford Street and Covent Garden Market
it's nothing like real London a a kind
of fake London if you will when I arrive
in Fake London by train I'm on the side
of a high-speed stro across from a
surface parking lot there isn't much
left of downtown and my only option to
get anywhere is a taxi the city is very
spread out and designed almost
exclusively for cars bus service is
highly unreliable and slow and there's
no way I would feel safe enough to ride
a bike here I have to drive pretty much
everywhere to do pretty much anything
which I got to say kind of sucks too
many people drive really dangerously and
there are regular news stories about
people being killed in car crashes so
when I'm sitting on a giant Strode stuck
in traffic the idea of having the car
take care of all this boring dangerous
driving seems pretty great but then I
think about about
utre utre is a city in the middle of the
Netherlands and I have to go there
fairly regularly for one reason or
another the population of UT is very
similar to that of fake London but
otherwise these cities are very very
different so you're probably thinking
that it's almost comical to compare UT
to London right I mean it seems
ridiculous because these cities have
almost nothing in common and yet 100
years ago they were pretty similar sure
the architecture was different but the
fundamental design of the city was
pretty comparable both were compact
walkable cities full of mixed use
neighborhoods and connected by street
cars because both cities were founded
long before automobiles were invented
over the 20th century both cities
embraced the automobile and both cities
built wide roads and highways utre
filled in a canal in their city center
and turned it into a highway and London
bulldozed a neighborhood to build a wide
Road straight into downtown UT and
London both even bulldozed part of their
City Center to build a Suburban style
shopping mall and these malls were both
the first of their kind in their
respective countries utre was about a
decade behind London but otherwise these
cities were on exactly the same path
that is until about the 1990s when utre
decided to change course due to Growing
concerns about the negative impact of
car Centric development they made a fund
FAL decision to make the city friendlier
to people walking and cycling to reduce
car traffic and to create better public
spaces the highway around the city
center was turned back into a
canal you'd never know that this used to
be a
highway and today that downtown shopping
center is connected directly to a new
train station via a pedestrianized area
and closely integrated with the rest of
the city on the other side
it's such an incredible difference to
arrive in this place by train compared
to fake London despite having almost the
same population as my hometown it hosts
the busiest train station in the
Netherlands transporting over 200,000
people per day with over a th000 daily
departures on National and international
trains there are hundreds of
destinations within walking distance of
the station and there are great
connections to other forms of public
transit including this new tram system
underneath the station is the world's
largest bicycle parking garage with
spaces for over 12,000 bicycles and I
can pick up one of the hundreds of
rental bicycles using my Transit card
and cycle to any
destination I can cycle anywhere I want
quickly and easily and because of the
highquality infrastructure I never feel
unsafe it also helps that car volumes
are low and so are the speed limits near
the train station is this street
accessible only to walking cycling and
public transit this is one of the
busiest cycling pass in the world and I
probably see more people cycling in 5
minutes here than I have in my entire
life in Fake
London walking around the city is also
convenient and comfortable the streets
are lined with interesting shops and
restaurants and there isn't a surface
parking lot in sight anymore there are
many nice residential neighborhoods and
it's remarkably quiet too because as
I've realized over the years cities
aren't loud cars are loud I don't feel
unsafe walking and cycling here so the
safety Promises of autonomous vehicles
don't really seem to matter much there
isn't a lot of traffic because there are
viable alternatives to driving people
aren't forced to drive here so the only
people in cars are those who need to
drive or those who really want to drive
self-driving cars are supposed to
provide Mobility to children the
disabled and the elderly and yet I see
all of those people getting around just
fine in usak because universal access to
Mobility isn't a fundamental issue it's
a problem caused by car
dependency would this guy be better off
in a self-driving car maybe I didn't ask
him but it's not like he's unable to get
around independently here like would be
the case where I'm from now utre isn't
perfect and the city still shows the
scars of that 1960s car Centric
development but it also just doesn't
have most of the problems that
autonomous vehicles are supposed to
solve and yet they did it without any
advanced technology without spending
hundreds of billions of dollars and
without letting their City be controlled
by the whims of multi-billion dollar
corporations either if everybody here
was in self-driving cars this place
would be much much worse so it's seems
what we really need is not driverless
cars it's carless
drivers I think UT and cities like it
can provide a template for what we
should be doing to prepare for
self-driving cars we need to limit where
cars can go and that includes autonomous
vehicles UT has many places that are off
limits to cars but Motor Vehicles are
still extremely useful sometimes so
access is still provided for delivery
trucks emergency vehicles and people
with
disabilities we need fewer cars in
cities so we should definitely tear down
Urban freeways that divide neighborhoods
and turn the space into Parks shops and
houses cars should go around cities and
not through them we should make it
impossible to drive through the middle
of the City by car the most direct route
should only be accessible by walking
cycling in public transit enforced by
modal filters we also need to lower
speed limits now to make make the street
safer today but also to reduce noise and
pollution lowering speed limits can
sometimes be controversial but after
it's done there is nearly Universal
support to keep them low so let's do it
now before AVS take a foothold we need
to remove parking especially surface
parking lots we're never going to be
able to charge for parking once cars can
dr
posted by k3ninho at 1:00 PM on November 10 [1 favorite]
The good news is that you don't have to raze entire cities. You have to change some zoning laws - zone to allow people to build for density (eg row houses, multi-family buildings, mixed use stuff with commerce on the ground floor and residential above), and get rid of the mandatory minimum parking requirements that make projects way too expensive and space inefficient.
Those are fantastic ideas and I totally support them. I guess my point was that there is a ton of already-existing housing stock that have poor to nonexistent transit options. What do you do with those? Just tell people "sorry you're fucked, maybe things will be better in 2-3 generations"?
Case in point: my MIL lives alone in a typical SFH in a very low-density typical US suburban neighborhood. Changing zoning regs does nothing about the fact that her neighborhood is totally, almost ridiculously unwalkable and has zero taxi or bus service. She lost the ability to drive a few months ago due to medical reasons and it absolutely ruined her mentally and turned her into a literal shut-in. It's horrible to watch. More options don't fix that of course, but giving people the option to remain independent in a safe way would do wonders. And it's not just old age - I once lost the ability to drive due to medical reasons for 2 months and I was not prepared for just how isolating and debilitating it is. It's why I'm gunning for a country with more sensible urban design.
It's terrible and makes me fear for my own parents (who live in a similar neighborhood and will likely be unable to drive within the next 5-10 years). We need better interim solutions, full stop.
posted by photo guy at 2:20 PM on November 10 [6 favorites]
Those are fantastic ideas and I totally support them. I guess my point was that there is a ton of already-existing housing stock that have poor to nonexistent transit options. What do you do with those? Just tell people "sorry you're fucked, maybe things will be better in 2-3 generations"?
Case in point: my MIL lives alone in a typical SFH in a very low-density typical US suburban neighborhood. Changing zoning regs does nothing about the fact that her neighborhood is totally, almost ridiculously unwalkable and has zero taxi or bus service. She lost the ability to drive a few months ago due to medical reasons and it absolutely ruined her mentally and turned her into a literal shut-in. It's horrible to watch. More options don't fix that of course, but giving people the option to remain independent in a safe way would do wonders. And it's not just old age - I once lost the ability to drive due to medical reasons for 2 months and I was not prepared for just how isolating and debilitating it is. It's why I'm gunning for a country with more sensible urban design.
It's terrible and makes me fear for my own parents (who live in a similar neighborhood and will likely be unable to drive within the next 5-10 years). We need better interim solutions, full stop.
posted by photo guy at 2:20 PM on November 10 [6 favorites]
It's a good thing we won't see self-driving cars in our lifetimes.
I've commented in other threads on this topic, but I work as an automotive journalist. I've been in dozens of "self-driving" vehicles in many different situations, and we are decades away from the technology required to make this feasible.
posted by jordantwodelta at 3:09 PM on November 10 [13 favorites]
I've commented in other threads on this topic, but I work as an automotive journalist. I've been in dozens of "self-driving" vehicles in many different situations, and we are decades away from the technology required to make this feasible.
posted by jordantwodelta at 3:09 PM on November 10 [13 favorites]
You can also see an AI-generated summary at https://www.summarize.tech/www.youtube.com/watch?v=040ejWnFkj0 - it summarizes the whole thing, then summarizes each 5-minute chunk.
It looks like the long distances stuff starts at around 20:00 - 25:00:
It looks like the long distances stuff starts at around 20:00 - 25:00:
00:20:00 In this section, the speaker discusses the potential negative impacts of self-driving cars on cities, debunking common claims such as increased mobility for disabled individuals, reduced traffic congestion, and decreased number of cars in cities. It is argued that self-driving cars may lead to more cars on the road, longer traveling distances, and increased traffic, especially due to factors like constant circling of robo taxis to quickly respond to customers. The speaker raises concerns about the inefficient use of space in cities, potential suburban sprawl, and the rise of delivery services causing increased traffic congestion, ultimately suggesting a worrisome future where self-driving cars contribute to a significant surge in vehicle miles traveled.and it looks like the "what to do about it" stuff may be in the 45:00 section:
00:45:00 In this section, the speaker describes the transformation of a city center into a pedestrian-friendly environment with excellent public transit infrastructure, including a large bicycle parking garage and a bustling train station. The city's focus on reducing car traffic and promoting alternative modes of transportation has led to a vibrant urban atmosphere where walking and cycling are preferred over driving. The success of this city serves as a model for preparing for self-driving cars by restricting car access in certain areas, tearing down urban freeways, and reducing parking spaces to encourage a carless urban lifestyle. The emphasis is on creating cities where driving is not the primary mode of transportation, resulting in safer streets, reduced noise and pollution, and overall improved quality of life.posted by kristi at 3:28 PM on November 10
Changing zoning regs does nothing about the fact that her neighborhood is totally, almost ridiculously unwalkable
No, but in many cases a few strategic sidewalks and pedestrian/cycle paths can drastically improve connectivity for people not using cars.
Zoning can help indirectly, though, in that allowing ADUs by right can increase density enough to make it worth operating taxi and rideshare services or putting a fixed route bus service on a nearby main road after the above mentioned connectivity improvements make it reasonable to actually get to the main road without a car.
But yeah, being stuck somewhere there isn't even paratransit as someone unable to drive really really sucks. In some parts of the country transit agencies do run dial-a-ride scheduled service much farther away from town than you'd expect, but there are still a lot of places where that isn't an option and even when it is it's not great (though still miles better than nothing at all!)
posted by wierdo at 3:34 PM on November 10 [5 favorites]
No, but in many cases a few strategic sidewalks and pedestrian/cycle paths can drastically improve connectivity for people not using cars.
Zoning can help indirectly, though, in that allowing ADUs by right can increase density enough to make it worth operating taxi and rideshare services or putting a fixed route bus service on a nearby main road after the above mentioned connectivity improvements make it reasonable to actually get to the main road without a car.
But yeah, being stuck somewhere there isn't even paratransit as someone unable to drive really really sucks. In some parts of the country transit agencies do run dial-a-ride scheduled service much farther away from town than you'd expect, but there are still a lot of places where that isn't an option and even when it is it's not great (though still miles better than nothing at all!)
posted by wierdo at 3:34 PM on November 10 [5 favorites]
It was an interesting watch, but very long, yes.
A whole lot of historical comparisons to the early 20th century when car companies killed public transit.
The gist is simple: the future needs much, much better public transit, and way less cars.
Not a bunch of self driving taxis.
posted by teece303 at 3:48 PM on November 10 [6 favorites]
A whole lot of historical comparisons to the early 20th century when car companies killed public transit.
The gist is simple: the future needs much, much better public transit, and way less cars.
Not a bunch of self driving taxis.
posted by teece303 at 3:48 PM on November 10 [6 favorites]
MOAR CARZ, even self-driving ones, is not the answer to city gridlock and livability. And as jordantwodelta hints at, self-driving cars are not ready for wider deployment outside of tightly-controlled urban experiments.
I'm not calling for immediately razing and rebuilding our cities, but we have to stop making the personal vehicle the priority urban citizen. Put on an urban surcharge for personal vehicles, turn more lanes over to bikes and transit. Fix the city slowly. If you want to put on a fleet of self-driving taxis as well... maybe. I'm just tired of the "self-driving cars will fix everything!" boosters.
I have an elderly parent too. Living alone, and not driving, in a low-population, zero-transit suburb is not possible or practical for everyone. And is not sustainable. The suburbs have to have the alternatives put in, or Mom has to move. Self-driving cars won't be cheap.
posted by Artful Codger at 4:25 PM on November 10 [8 favorites]
I'm not calling for immediately razing and rebuilding our cities, but we have to stop making the personal vehicle the priority urban citizen. Put on an urban surcharge for personal vehicles, turn more lanes over to bikes and transit. Fix the city slowly. If you want to put on a fleet of self-driving taxis as well... maybe. I'm just tired of the "self-driving cars will fix everything!" boosters.
I have an elderly parent too. Living alone, and not driving, in a low-population, zero-transit suburb is not possible or practical for everyone. And is not sustainable. The suburbs have to have the alternatives put in, or Mom has to move. Self-driving cars won't be cheap.
posted by Artful Codger at 4:25 PM on November 10 [8 favorites]
It's a good thing we won't see self-driving cars in our lifetimes.
don't tell the folks at Kettering University this, they might have to cancel their master's degree program in autonomous vehicles. Grant you level five may be very difficult in the next decade or two, but level four could be achieved within a decade or less.
posted by clavdivs at 4:48 PM on November 10 [1 favorite]
don't tell the folks at Kettering University this, they might have to cancel their master's degree program in autonomous vehicles. Grant you level five may be very difficult in the next decade or two, but level four could be achieved within a decade or less.
posted by clavdivs at 4:48 PM on November 10 [1 favorite]
It's a good thing we won't see self-driving cars in our lifetimes.
Waymo is now doing 100,000 autonomous rides a week, which is already double what they were doing four months ago.
I understand these cars aren't "truly" autonomous in the sense that you can't drop a Waymo car onto any road in the world, but for people in a number of cities, self-driving cars are a reality.
In the last few years of his life, my father couldn't drive and had serious mobility issues. Having access to a self-driving car would have been literally life changing. There are so many elderly people who should not be driving, but continue to do so because they have no other choice. Create sensible legislation around these cars and let's give millions of people the chance for a better life, and the rest of us safer roads.
posted by gwint at 5:25 PM on November 10 [6 favorites]
Waymo is now doing 100,000 autonomous rides a week, which is already double what they were doing four months ago.
I understand these cars aren't "truly" autonomous in the sense that you can't drop a Waymo car onto any road in the world, but for people in a number of cities, self-driving cars are a reality.
In the last few years of his life, my father couldn't drive and had serious mobility issues. Having access to a self-driving car would have been literally life changing. There are so many elderly people who should not be driving, but continue to do so because they have no other choice. Create sensible legislation around these cars and let's give millions of people the chance for a better life, and the rest of us safer roads.
posted by gwint at 5:25 PM on November 10 [6 favorites]
There are self driving cars right now and they’re safer than human operated cars.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:27 PM on November 10 [3 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:27 PM on November 10 [3 favorites]
the cheaper it is to drive the more they fill up, to the point of borderline uselessness.
It's already sort of the case now with awful traffic in many parts of the world.
I see a convenient intersection of the problem of not being able to tax fuel as a proxy for road maintenance (due to electrification), combined with the increasingly cheap internet connectivity / RFID technologies, which could lead governments to eventually impose taxes based on time-of-use congestion + distance travelled.
This is similar to time-of-use tariffs or even wholesale tariffs for electricity usage, which encourage the user to time-shift their grid demand and automatically enhance the efficiency of the whole grid. When I say user I'm not just talking about individuals, but also the industrial scale users.
In the case of commercial road users, the congestion taxes would make time-shifting road demand viable even if they have to pay overtime for drivers to do deliveries outside of peak times.
As a type of tax, this would be integrated with your income tax so poorer users pay very little while richer users pay a lot more, to avoid the issues with regressive taxes.
posted by xdvesper at 6:05 PM on November 10 [2 favorites]
It's already sort of the case now with awful traffic in many parts of the world.
I see a convenient intersection of the problem of not being able to tax fuel as a proxy for road maintenance (due to electrification), combined with the increasingly cheap internet connectivity / RFID technologies, which could lead governments to eventually impose taxes based on time-of-use congestion + distance travelled.
This is similar to time-of-use tariffs or even wholesale tariffs for electricity usage, which encourage the user to time-shift their grid demand and automatically enhance the efficiency of the whole grid. When I say user I'm not just talking about individuals, but also the industrial scale users.
In the case of commercial road users, the congestion taxes would make time-shifting road demand viable even if they have to pay overtime for drivers to do deliveries outside of peak times.
As a type of tax, this would be integrated with your income tax so poorer users pay very little while richer users pay a lot more, to avoid the issues with regressive taxes.
posted by xdvesper at 6:05 PM on November 10 [2 favorites]
There are self driving cars right now and they’re safer than human operated cars.
... mainly in optimal, limited urban locations.
(I haven't yet seen a comparison that's apples to apples - that is, human vs self-driving cars in the same locale, times, routes and conditions. Might exist, but I haven't seen it.)
posted by Artful Codger at 7:10 PM on November 10 [3 favorites]
... mainly in optimal, limited urban locations.
(I haven't yet seen a comparison that's apples to apples - that is, human vs self-driving cars in the same locale, times, routes and conditions. Might exist, but I haven't seen it.)
posted by Artful Codger at 7:10 PM on November 10 [3 favorites]
I certainly have no love for Elon Musk, but I will say that every story I've heard about a self-driving car killing or injuring someone has me saying, "Because a human-driven car never killed or injured anyone?" It seems appalling to hear stories about an autonomous car rolling over someone, mostly because it seems like something that wouldn't happen if the technology were somehow magically Better, but frankly I think it doesn't really make a difference if I die because of a GPS fuckup or because someone was driving shitfaced. The question is, which one is more likely: a tech error that kills me, or a human one? If the odds are even, that's not a good argument against self-driving cars. But I have a feeling the drunk driver is a bigger threat.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:44 PM on November 10 [7 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:44 PM on November 10 [7 favorites]
... mainly in optimal, limited urban locations.
Just like subways and trolleys!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:49 PM on November 10 [3 favorites]
Just like subways and trolleys!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:49 PM on November 10 [3 favorites]
Was in Kanazawa, Japan recently and found myself noticing how, by far, the fastest way to get around town is via the bikeshare system they have in place — I had to get a taxi at one point due to a bikeshare system whoopsie (which was my fault anyway) and it literally took nearly twice as much time to make the trip as it would have by bike, due to how bad traffic usually is! Turns out basically never having to wait through more than one cycle per red light makes a huge difference.
Anyway, yeah, autonomous cars just means more cars on the road, which just means slower traffic. Overall that seems Bad, Actually (and actually pretty closely mirrors the exact same issues that arose with Uber and Lyft)
posted by DoctorFedora at 8:14 PM on November 10 [3 favorites]
Anyway, yeah, autonomous cars just means more cars on the road, which just means slower traffic. Overall that seems Bad, Actually (and actually pretty closely mirrors the exact same issues that arose with Uber and Lyft)
posted by DoctorFedora at 8:14 PM on November 10 [3 favorites]
As a Bay area cyclist, I feel safer around the Waymo cars than human driven cars.
There's potentially a world where we get rid of personal ownership of cars, and I think that's a better one. If you're paying per-trip, you're encouraged to optimize a bit more than someone who pays a large upfront cost for purchasing a vehicle and then a very low per trip cost. Your should get people thinking about whether to take a car, public transport, a bike, or some mixture. For my part, as a non-driver, I mostly bike and take the ferry, use Bart a couple times a week, and about once a month call a car. For the 'call a car' usage, it would make no functional difference whether or was self driving or not - I do it rarely because the other options are cheaper and pretty convenient, especially when paired with a folding bike.
posted by kaibutsu at 8:33 PM on November 10 [5 favorites]
There's potentially a world where we get rid of personal ownership of cars, and I think that's a better one. If you're paying per-trip, you're encouraged to optimize a bit more than someone who pays a large upfront cost for purchasing a vehicle and then a very low per trip cost. Your should get people thinking about whether to take a car, public transport, a bike, or some mixture. For my part, as a non-driver, I mostly bike and take the ferry, use Bart a couple times a week, and about once a month call a car. For the 'call a car' usage, it would make no functional difference whether or was self driving or not - I do it rarely because the other options are cheaper and pretty convenient, especially when paired with a folding bike.
posted by kaibutsu at 8:33 PM on November 10 [5 favorites]
Is there an equivalent text link?
On YouTube, go down to the description and click "more". Scroll down to the bottom of that for the automated transcript provided by YouTube. It's obviously not a proper article, and depending on the person speaking, can be more or less accurate- however the timestamps next to the transcripted lines will take you to that part of the video if you need to hear it.
posted by oneirodynia at 9:08 PM on November 10 [1 favorite]
On YouTube, go down to the description and click "more". Scroll down to the bottom of that for the automated transcript provided by YouTube. It's obviously not a proper article, and depending on the person speaking, can be more or less accurate- however the timestamps next to the transcripted lines will take you to that part of the video if you need to hear it.
posted by oneirodynia at 9:08 PM on November 10 [1 favorite]
Just like subways and trolleys!
But with absolutely none of the throughput benefits of a trolley or subway.
A subway moves more people than a 12 lane highway. Or the Brooklyn Bridge, which took a permanent hit of more than 50% reduction in capacity when the trolley was eliminated back on the 1920s. Used to be ~400k people per day. It has never passed something like ~190k people day, even now, since being all car.
Self driving cars will make all traffic worse, until we get them way better. And eliminate any non-self-driving cars. If you watch the video, you’ll see why that is not really a solution to any of our current traffic problems.
posted by teece303 at 9:41 PM on November 10 [13 favorites]
But with absolutely none of the throughput benefits of a trolley or subway.
A subway moves more people than a 12 lane highway. Or the Brooklyn Bridge, which took a permanent hit of more than 50% reduction in capacity when the trolley was eliminated back on the 1920s. Used to be ~400k people per day. It has never passed something like ~190k people day, even now, since being all car.
Self driving cars will make all traffic worse, until we get them way better. And eliminate any non-self-driving cars. If you watch the video, you’ll see why that is not really a solution to any of our current traffic problems.
posted by teece303 at 9:41 PM on November 10 [13 favorites]
This video starts from a strong view that autonomous vehicles are bad and looks for 'facts' that support the position, so it doesn't have a lot of credibility to me, although I do agree with a lot of the conclusions related to profit incentives making things worse for most people (which is not unique to autonomous vehicles by any means). I did like the comparison between 'fake London' and Utrecht, though.
The common issue I see with arguments in favour of autonomous cars is that they start from a position of everyone owning their own vehicle - just replacing the current deeply flawed system with an identical one with machine rather than human drivers. I think there are lots of potential benefits of autonomous vehicles in a scenario where they aren't individually owned and where they aren't mixing with human-driven vehicles, particularly in areas where a lot of people make essentially the same commute. Until a few years ago, I used to make a commute that was shared by something like 50k people every day, mostly along a 110km/h highway. I can see huge advantages in such a scenario, where the biggest cause of delays was humans, either running into the back of other cars because they weren't paying attention or turning themselves into a moving roadblock by driving well below the speed of everyone else (resulting in people running into the back of them). This is the kind of scenario where autonomous vehicles could shine, but only if they are not mixed with human-driven cars.
So, I think there are places and situations where autonomous vehicles could work and work well. But, short of rebuilding pretty much every roadway to separate autonomous from human-driven vehicles, I can't see a future like this in any of our lifetimes. In almost every situation, an efficient public transport system would be a far better option. Given the almost universal hate of public transport, I can't see that happening either. I will be interested to see how much impact the decision to introduce a flat 50c rate for any public transport trip in the SE corner of my state has on the use of public transport, given the (previous) high cost was often quoted as a reason for not using it. For comparison, my previous commute cost around $110 a week by train (which I used for all but a couple of years) so, if you had two people traveling together, it was cheaper to pay a stupid amount for parking in the city than to catch the train. That's clearly not the case now, so let's see what happens.
posted by dg at 9:47 PM on November 10 [2 favorites]
The common issue I see with arguments in favour of autonomous cars is that they start from a position of everyone owning their own vehicle - just replacing the current deeply flawed system with an identical one with machine rather than human drivers. I think there are lots of potential benefits of autonomous vehicles in a scenario where they aren't individually owned and where they aren't mixing with human-driven vehicles, particularly in areas where a lot of people make essentially the same commute. Until a few years ago, I used to make a commute that was shared by something like 50k people every day, mostly along a 110km/h highway. I can see huge advantages in such a scenario, where the biggest cause of delays was humans, either running into the back of other cars because they weren't paying attention or turning themselves into a moving roadblock by driving well below the speed of everyone else (resulting in people running into the back of them). This is the kind of scenario where autonomous vehicles could shine, but only if they are not mixed with human-driven cars.
So, I think there are places and situations where autonomous vehicles could work and work well. But, short of rebuilding pretty much every roadway to separate autonomous from human-driven vehicles, I can't see a future like this in any of our lifetimes. In almost every situation, an efficient public transport system would be a far better option. Given the almost universal hate of public transport, I can't see that happening either. I will be interested to see how much impact the decision to introduce a flat 50c rate for any public transport trip in the SE corner of my state has on the use of public transport, given the (previous) high cost was often quoted as a reason for not using it. For comparison, my previous commute cost around $110 a week by train (which I used for all but a couple of years) so, if you had two people traveling together, it was cheaper to pay a stupid amount for parking in the city than to catch the train. That's clearly not the case now, so let's see what happens.
posted by dg at 9:47 PM on November 10 [2 favorites]
It's interesting that many Americans assume "suburb with bad/no bus service" is an immutable thing. If you have a multi lane road, that only needs a bucket of paint to be a bus lane. Bus lanes are proven not to make traffic measurably worse (even if they take half the road) and make buses very competitive. And it's not a school bus or paratransit, it doesn't need to come to your door - end of cul de sac is close enough, as long as it's every 15 minutes. Especially if it's a short route that gets you to a light rail stop into the city.
As with so many things, it's a question of appropriate public investment.
posted by I claim sanctuary at 10:28 PM on November 10 [12 favorites]
As with so many things, it's a question of appropriate public investment.
posted by I claim sanctuary at 10:28 PM on November 10 [12 favorites]
Bus lanes are proven not to make traffic measurably worse (even if they take half the road) and make buses very competitive
Well yes, but then you need to account for the many suburb-dwellers who are *convinced* that adding a bus means there'll be a crime spree as 'urban' people haul their flat-screen TVs away on the bus. (No really, I've heard this enough times in public planning meetings in the Seattle area, it's just as bad as you think)
posted by CrystalDave at 11:00 PM on November 10 [6 favorites]
Well yes, but then you need to account for the many suburb-dwellers who are *convinced* that adding a bus means there'll be a crime spree as 'urban' people haul their flat-screen TVs away on the bus. (No really, I've heard this enough times in public planning meetings in the Seattle area, it's just as bad as you think)
posted by CrystalDave at 11:00 PM on November 10 [6 favorites]
It's interesting that many Americans assume "suburb with bad/no bus service" is an immutable thing. If you have a multi lane road, that only needs a bucket of paint to be a bus lane. Bus lanes are proven not to make traffic measurably worse (even if they take half the road) and make buses very competitive. And it's not a school bus or paratransit, it doesn't need to come to your door - end of cul de sac is close enough, as long as it's every 15 minutes. Especially if it's a short route that gets you to a light rail stop into the city.
I never said it was, I said there is no realistic way to improve it. You act like these suburbs are small little pockets within a greater urban landscape. No, these low-density suburbs ARE the "urban" landscape. Most businesses, shops, hospitals, etc are scattered throughout this low-density hellscape. Transit is never going to be workable because it is low-density. What are you going to do, run buses that only carry 2 or 3 people a day? It makes no sense.
Case in point, I live outside the US but still own a house in Fairfax County, VA. It is part of the massive, massive suburban sprawl that is the DC/NoVA suburbs and is hell on earth. It HAS transit but that transit does not work for most trips. My neighborhood, which is mostly a mix of apartments and townhomes, still only has exactly one bus route within a 30-min walking radius. It only runs once/hour (and not at all on weekends) and the in rare case it runs, it's only usable to get to the nearest Metro station. Metro is only useful if you're taking the very, very long ride into DC. But most workplaces, shopping, etc are not in DC, they are widely scattered throughout the area. Transit is unusable to get to them precisely because they are scattered, they are not concentrated around transit and transit within the county (vs just funneling office drones into their DC cubicles) is a joke.
And this is an area with supposedly amazing transit by US standards. My parents neighborhood in another part of the US is far, far worse.
posted by photo guy at 12:28 AM on November 11 [2 favorites]
I never said it was, I said there is no realistic way to improve it. You act like these suburbs are small little pockets within a greater urban landscape. No, these low-density suburbs ARE the "urban" landscape. Most businesses, shops, hospitals, etc are scattered throughout this low-density hellscape. Transit is never going to be workable because it is low-density. What are you going to do, run buses that only carry 2 or 3 people a day? It makes no sense.
Case in point, I live outside the US but still own a house in Fairfax County, VA. It is part of the massive, massive suburban sprawl that is the DC/NoVA suburbs and is hell on earth. It HAS transit but that transit does not work for most trips. My neighborhood, which is mostly a mix of apartments and townhomes, still only has exactly one bus route within a 30-min walking radius. It only runs once/hour (and not at all on weekends) and the in rare case it runs, it's only usable to get to the nearest Metro station. Metro is only useful if you're taking the very, very long ride into DC. But most workplaces, shopping, etc are not in DC, they are widely scattered throughout the area. Transit is unusable to get to them precisely because they are scattered, they are not concentrated around transit and transit within the county (vs just funneling office drones into their DC cubicles) is a joke.
And this is an area with supposedly amazing transit by US standards. My parents neighborhood in another part of the US is far, far worse.
posted by photo guy at 12:28 AM on November 11 [2 favorites]
...only if they are not mixed with human-driven cars.
One of the points made in the video is that if "self" driving cars do take off, it is likely to be in areas dedicated to their use and with pedestrian sidewalks fenced off. That's not a city I would want to live in.
posted by Lanark at 1:11 AM on November 11 [3 favorites]
One of the points made in the video is that if "self" driving cars do take off, it is likely to be in areas dedicated to their use and with pedestrian sidewalks fenced off. That's not a city I would want to live in.
posted by Lanark at 1:11 AM on November 11 [3 favorites]
Another way to think about induced demand is that each person has a general amount of traffic annoyance they are willing to put up with, and the roads of a given city/region will seek the equilibrium distribution of acceptable annoyance across the population. In places where there are viable alternatives to driving (yes I hear that in Jason Slaughter's voice), annoyance shifts trips on to other means of transport; in places like most of North America where there are not, those trips just won't happen.
For instance, driving is annoying enough for me that I'm generally willing to double my single-direction travel time, up to three hours for day trips or six hours for overnights, to shift a Western European road trip onto a train -- if I have any confidence whatsoever that train will not be cancelled, yes I'm looking at you, DB. Other people have other set points, based on how much they like/dislike trains, how they account for their time and the depreciation and externalities of their private vehicle, and so on.
Self-driving cars promise to (drastically) reduce the annoyance involved with traffic without reducing the traffic. Since the trip generation function is annoyance-, not cost-driven, this will change the equilibrium to "much more traffic", which is where the dystopia comes in.
In most of North America... yeah, this is probably something to worry about (assuming self-driving cars actually get good enough to deliver on their annoyance-reduction progress), though it's really more of a matter of cementing existing pedestrian dystopias than creating new ones. I don't see Amsterdam or Paris, or even Zurich or Berlin for that matter, going all-in on autonomous-vehicle-only right of way.
(On the flip side, if you regulate AVs in cities such that they must always yield to pedestrians in urban environments -- as is the case for most 20/30 km/h streets in places with public land use not dictated by auto manufacturers already -- there's actually a possibility for Really Good AVs, if they ever exist, to reduce both motorist and pedestrian annoyance while increasing efficiency for both. But I get the sense that making car people, bike people, and foot people yell at each other is on its own an ancillary goal of Western politics these days, so my optimism here is limited)
posted by Vetinari at 1:32 AM on November 11 [4 favorites]
For instance, driving is annoying enough for me that I'm generally willing to double my single-direction travel time, up to three hours for day trips or six hours for overnights, to shift a Western European road trip onto a train -- if I have any confidence whatsoever that train will not be cancelled, yes I'm looking at you, DB. Other people have other set points, based on how much they like/dislike trains, how they account for their time and the depreciation and externalities of their private vehicle, and so on.
Self-driving cars promise to (drastically) reduce the annoyance involved with traffic without reducing the traffic. Since the trip generation function is annoyance-, not cost-driven, this will change the equilibrium to "much more traffic", which is where the dystopia comes in.
In most of North America... yeah, this is probably something to worry about (assuming self-driving cars actually get good enough to deliver on their annoyance-reduction progress), though it's really more of a matter of cementing existing pedestrian dystopias than creating new ones. I don't see Amsterdam or Paris, or even Zurich or Berlin for that matter, going all-in on autonomous-vehicle-only right of way.
(On the flip side, if you regulate AVs in cities such that they must always yield to pedestrians in urban environments -- as is the case for most 20/30 km/h streets in places with public land use not dictated by auto manufacturers already -- there's actually a possibility for Really Good AVs, if they ever exist, to reduce both motorist and pedestrian annoyance while increasing efficiency for both. But I get the sense that making car people, bike people, and foot people yell at each other is on its own an ancillary goal of Western politics these days, so my optimism here is limited)
posted by Vetinari at 1:32 AM on November 11 [4 favorites]
You act like these suburbs are small little pockets within a greater urban landscape. No, these low-density suburbs ARE the "urban" landscape.
That would be the countryside here in Europe - villages are low-density like that and worse, because there are spaces between them taken up with fields and forests. And local bus service still exists.
I've been looking at a lot of cases for restoring bus service in the countryside recently. Many local authorities closed theirs down when people got rich enough to buy a fourth-hand used car for commuting, but even in areas where traffic isn't an issue, there are enough people of non-driving age that it's worth it, especially since the same authorities already have buses used twice a day for school commuting. It turns out that if you put up a decent once an hour schedule and plan the routes well, going through the local health centre and the library and the senior day centre and the railway station because your research revealed that's where people actually want to go, the actual ridership comes up to like 30 people per bus. It's the mum with the toddler going in for a checkup while the husband's got the car at his work (and yes, the bus is adapted so she has no problem getting the stroller on the bus). It's the blind guy going in for a decent kebab in town to meet up with his mates without them needing to drive out to get him. Teenagers able to actually go somewhere without parents driving them. The townie spending the summer there who left her car in the shop in town because her brakes started screeching alarmingly. Grandpa goes for his special sausages from the farmers market, grandma goes for her Third Age University lectures in town, and then their kids realise that getting the bus to the railway station in town means not fighting for parking there or spending an hour in the traffic jam to get to their job in the city - I have reams of demands for village buses like that or increased service on the lines that are already there.
If you build it, they will come. But of course it's easier to assume that "buses" are bad, and not the fact public transport is badly planned, underinvested and constructed with the assumption that only poor people ride buses so there's no point in efficiency because poor people's time and comfort isn't worth anything. Yes, cars are more convenient (and autonomous ones will be even more if they ever get here), but that's only up to the point the infrastructure jams up - and in that case it's always cheaper, from a society point of view once you take into account externalities like pollution and the value of time spent in traffic jams, to put in decent public transport that saves people time.
posted by I claim sanctuary at 1:35 AM on November 11 [8 favorites]
That would be the countryside here in Europe - villages are low-density like that and worse, because there are spaces between them taken up with fields and forests. And local bus service still exists.
I've been looking at a lot of cases for restoring bus service in the countryside recently. Many local authorities closed theirs down when people got rich enough to buy a fourth-hand used car for commuting, but even in areas where traffic isn't an issue, there are enough people of non-driving age that it's worth it, especially since the same authorities already have buses used twice a day for school commuting. It turns out that if you put up a decent once an hour schedule and plan the routes well, going through the local health centre and the library and the senior day centre and the railway station because your research revealed that's where people actually want to go, the actual ridership comes up to like 30 people per bus. It's the mum with the toddler going in for a checkup while the husband's got the car at his work (and yes, the bus is adapted so she has no problem getting the stroller on the bus). It's the blind guy going in for a decent kebab in town to meet up with his mates without them needing to drive out to get him. Teenagers able to actually go somewhere without parents driving them. The townie spending the summer there who left her car in the shop in town because her brakes started screeching alarmingly. Grandpa goes for his special sausages from the farmers market, grandma goes for her Third Age University lectures in town, and then their kids realise that getting the bus to the railway station in town means not fighting for parking there or spending an hour in the traffic jam to get to their job in the city - I have reams of demands for village buses like that or increased service on the lines that are already there.
If you build it, they will come. But of course it's easier to assume that "buses" are bad, and not the fact public transport is badly planned, underinvested and constructed with the assumption that only poor people ride buses so there's no point in efficiency because poor people's time and comfort isn't worth anything. Yes, cars are more convenient (and autonomous ones will be even more if they ever get here), but that's only up to the point the infrastructure jams up - and in that case it's always cheaper, from a society point of view once you take into account externalities like pollution and the value of time spent in traffic jams, to put in decent public transport that saves people time.
posted by I claim sanctuary at 1:35 AM on November 11 [8 favorites]
dg: This video starts from a strong view that autonomous vehicles are bad and looks for 'facts' that support the position, so it doesn't have a lot of credibility to me
I think it's okay to expect unproven technology to prove itself; that's skepticism, after all. The past behaviour of the auto industry and the past behaviour of tech start-ups are reasonable legacies to put us in a defensive stance and to expect autonomous vehicles to go a few extra miles to prove their safety and utility.
Why aren't people taking about the risk trade-off: more cars will mean more units sold, but also more hardware failure, more instances running code with bugs, more passengers and surrounding people killed? And then the cost -- higher insurance premia, too! But automous transit vehicles have more bums-on-seats per line of code or hardware device to fail, and traveling at slower speeds will do less harm.
posted by k3ninho at 4:01 AM on November 11 [2 favorites]
I think it's okay to expect unproven technology to prove itself; that's skepticism, after all. The past behaviour of the auto industry and the past behaviour of tech start-ups are reasonable legacies to put us in a defensive stance and to expect autonomous vehicles to go a few extra miles to prove their safety and utility.
Why aren't people taking about the risk trade-off: more cars will mean more units sold, but also more hardware failure, more instances running code with bugs, more passengers and surrounding people killed? And then the cost -- higher insurance premia, too! But automous transit vehicles have more bums-on-seats per line of code or hardware device to fail, and traveling at slower speeds will do less harm.
posted by k3ninho at 4:01 AM on November 11 [2 favorites]
That would be the countryside here in Europe - villages are low-density like that and worse, because there are spaces between them taken up with fields and forests. And local bus service still exists.
I get your point, but I have spent a lot of time in European villages (I am in Sweden, which is extremely rural outside the cities) and it's not really comparable to the kind of suburbs I'm talking about. The suburbs I am talking about were built post-1950s and, in my experience, are very rare to nonexistent in Europe.
I wouldn't normally post to Reddit, but this person did an excellent write up comparing the two. The US town mentioned is pretty much how 99% of the US is laid out: https://www.reddit.com/r/Suburbanhell/comments/zvn8xe/comparision_of_american_and_european_suburbs_on/
I do agree that European rural areas are not that different than US rural areas, driving around parts of Sweden are a lot like rural Virginia except for more bus stops and fewer soverign-citizen nutjobs. But I am specifically referring to suburban areas, not rural.
posted by photo guy at 4:02 AM on November 11 [2 favorites]
I get your point, but I have spent a lot of time in European villages (I am in Sweden, which is extremely rural outside the cities) and it's not really comparable to the kind of suburbs I'm talking about. The suburbs I am talking about were built post-1950s and, in my experience, are very rare to nonexistent in Europe.
I wouldn't normally post to Reddit, but this person did an excellent write up comparing the two. The US town mentioned is pretty much how 99% of the US is laid out: https://www.reddit.com/r/Suburbanhell/comments/zvn8xe/comparision_of_american_and_european_suburbs_on/
I do agree that European rural areas are not that different than US rural areas, driving around parts of Sweden are a lot like rural Virginia except for more bus stops and fewer soverign-citizen nutjobs. But I am specifically referring to suburban areas, not rural.
posted by photo guy at 4:02 AM on November 11 [2 favorites]
Just as well that that autonomous vehicles don't exist and aren't likely to in anything resembling this dystopian fantasy.
posted by GallonOfAlan at 4:06 AM on November 11 [1 favorite]
posted by GallonOfAlan at 4:06 AM on November 11 [1 favorite]
Meant to add - my point was that rural Europe is well set up for this, commercial services are generally centralized in a nearby village, which conveniently has a train station for the times you need to travel further. Many of those villages developed long, long before cars existed so they just naturally developed this way. It's very easy to lay out transit in this situation - you just have a hub-and-spoke system where buses all go to the village, because that's where virtually everyone needs to get to.
Most of the US is not built like this. Commercial services are not centralized, they are randomly dispersed in small, sad-looking strip malls randomly scattered throughout, with the obvious assumption being that people just drive to whatever random strip mall has the service they require. It's this weird homogeneity that is very difficult to describe if you've never experienced it. That means that mass transit is inherently not going to work well for a large portion of trips - you have 100 people in your development going to 100 different widely scattered destinations.
I am a fierce proponent of transit but the postwar US suburb is the most hostile environment imaginable for it. Telling people who are forced to live there (because that's where they can afford, where the jobs are, etc) that they are effectively fucked if they can no longer operate a motor vehicle is not great. And telling them we purposely ditched a possible alternative because some urban-planning egghead said it's not ideal is just cruel.
posted by photo guy at 4:17 AM on November 11 [2 favorites]
Most of the US is not built like this. Commercial services are not centralized, they are randomly dispersed in small, sad-looking strip malls randomly scattered throughout, with the obvious assumption being that people just drive to whatever random strip mall has the service they require. It's this weird homogeneity that is very difficult to describe if you've never experienced it. That means that mass transit is inherently not going to work well for a large portion of trips - you have 100 people in your development going to 100 different widely scattered destinations.
I am a fierce proponent of transit but the postwar US suburb is the most hostile environment imaginable for it. Telling people who are forced to live there (because that's where they can afford, where the jobs are, etc) that they are effectively fucked if they can no longer operate a motor vehicle is not great. And telling them we purposely ditched a possible alternative because some urban-planning egghead said it's not ideal is just cruel.
posted by photo guy at 4:17 AM on November 11 [2 favorites]
There is one political implication of self-driving cars that he didn't touch on. Up to now cars have been this symbol of freedom and property rights that politicians have been very reluctant to regulate, but there is reason to believe that self-driving cars will be treated differently.
For starters, self-driving cars are mostly owned by corporations and the wealthy.
I imagine if the folks who have to drive their old dinosaur-burner to work are finding the roads clogged with mostly-empty Waymo taxicabs who are not paying gas taxes, there will be some pretty severe political pressure to levy per-mile taxes on these new vehicles.
There is a possibility that self-driving cars will become cheap enough that they are widely owned by individuals, but at that point self-driving taxicabs will be even cheaper due to lower capital costs. Other than luxury, the only reason people would want to own a self-driving car in that economy is to give them the freedom to drive by hand in the few situations where that is advantageous. I think this will result in pressure to continue human-centric stoplights and driving laws, in the same way we still have pennies despite their uselessness.
posted by droro at 5:13 AM on November 11 [1 favorite]
For starters, self-driving cars are mostly owned by corporations and the wealthy.
I imagine if the folks who have to drive their old dinosaur-burner to work are finding the roads clogged with mostly-empty Waymo taxicabs who are not paying gas taxes, there will be some pretty severe political pressure to levy per-mile taxes on these new vehicles.
There is a possibility that self-driving cars will become cheap enough that they are widely owned by individuals, but at that point self-driving taxicabs will be even cheaper due to lower capital costs. Other than luxury, the only reason people would want to own a self-driving car in that economy is to give them the freedom to drive by hand in the few situations where that is advantageous. I think this will result in pressure to continue human-centric stoplights and driving laws, in the same way we still have pennies despite their uselessness.
posted by droro at 5:13 AM on November 11 [1 favorite]
Bikes/skooters are bad when thibgs are 100 km apart. It takes too much time.
Transit is bad when density of population falls below a certain threshold. The frequency of service and distance to service grow.
Automobiles are bad when density of population goes above a certain threshold. Cars are bulky.
Bikes/scooters can help Transit by making the distance to service shorter.
Cars don't work well with transit as they have to be parked at service endpoints. Autonomous cars don't.
Parking more than doubles car bulk. So cars stop being bad at a higher density when they are Taxis (eventually they still become bad).
But in that area, transit augmented with autonomius taxis and scooters makes transit better.
And in rural areas, cars remain basically unchallenged as superior.
posted by NotAYakk at 6:25 AM on November 11
Transit is bad when density of population falls below a certain threshold. The frequency of service and distance to service grow.
Automobiles are bad when density of population goes above a certain threshold. Cars are bulky.
Bikes/scooters can help Transit by making the distance to service shorter.
Cars don't work well with transit as they have to be parked at service endpoints. Autonomous cars don't.
Parking more than doubles car bulk. So cars stop being bad at a higher density when they are Taxis (eventually they still become bad).
But in that area, transit augmented with autonomius taxis and scooters makes transit better.
And in rural areas, cars remain basically unchallenged as superior.
posted by NotAYakk at 6:25 AM on November 11
First of all, congratulations; I'm not sure if everybody who read this sentence understands the implications, but you are obviously fantastically wealthy. I hope that your position does not become too horrible once Trump takes office again, but if it does, you can always sell that house and become a millionaire, so that must feel nice.
Wow that was uncalled for. Nice to know I'm not allowed to voice an opinion, glad to see MeFi is just as full of unjustified hate as the rest of America. Not that it's any of your business, but my very small townhome is not worth even remotely close to that figure, and is mortgaged to the hilt. I sell it tomorrow and I barely break even. Oh and as mentioned in another thread, I'm a federal employee so my career is toast now anyway. But screw me for even having a tiny bit of success in my life, right?
It's been a minute since I lived in the area, but the interesting thing about the gappier segments of the public transport web was that you could, at that time, fill in those gaps easily enough with cabs that came virtually instantaneously. I don't know whether the rise of Uber has changed any of that. The further you got into the suburbs, the harder it got to get a cab, but it still wasn't impossible until you went WAY into the middle of nowhere.
Yeah you clearly have never been in my neighborhood. In the last five years it became literally impossible to get ANY sort of transportation. Uber/Lyft barely functioned at all, it would take upwards of 30 mins to get a ride and drivers frequently cancel on top of that. I know multiple people who ran into this issue so it wasn't just me. Taxis are useless - the few taxi companies still in existence don't even answer their phone and don't have apps. It reached the point where the last couple of times I needed a ride to the airport, I had to hire a livery service to the tune of $200 each way.
That was my whole point, yeah it's dense but it's still unwalkable, has crap transit, and there aren't enough rideshare or taxi services to meet the demand. But whatever, you have made it clear that MeFi is still not a welcoming community and does not care about hearing diverse opinions. Whatever, enjoy your echo chamber.
posted by photo guy at 6:45 AM on November 11 [8 favorites]
Wow that was uncalled for. Nice to know I'm not allowed to voice an opinion, glad to see MeFi is just as full of unjustified hate as the rest of America. Not that it's any of your business, but my very small townhome is not worth even remotely close to that figure, and is mortgaged to the hilt. I sell it tomorrow and I barely break even. Oh and as mentioned in another thread, I'm a federal employee so my career is toast now anyway. But screw me for even having a tiny bit of success in my life, right?
It's been a minute since I lived in the area, but the interesting thing about the gappier segments of the public transport web was that you could, at that time, fill in those gaps easily enough with cabs that came virtually instantaneously. I don't know whether the rise of Uber has changed any of that. The further you got into the suburbs, the harder it got to get a cab, but it still wasn't impossible until you went WAY into the middle of nowhere.
Yeah you clearly have never been in my neighborhood. In the last five years it became literally impossible to get ANY sort of transportation. Uber/Lyft barely functioned at all, it would take upwards of 30 mins to get a ride and drivers frequently cancel on top of that. I know multiple people who ran into this issue so it wasn't just me. Taxis are useless - the few taxi companies still in existence don't even answer their phone and don't have apps. It reached the point where the last couple of times I needed a ride to the airport, I had to hire a livery service to the tune of $200 each way.
That was my whole point, yeah it's dense but it's still unwalkable, has crap transit, and there aren't enough rideshare or taxi services to meet the demand. But whatever, you have made it clear that MeFi is still not a welcoming community and does not care about hearing diverse opinions. Whatever, enjoy your echo chamber.
posted by photo guy at 6:45 AM on November 11 [8 favorites]
IMO the complaints about self-driving/autonomous cars are way overblown.
1) Just like VR, a ton of people (like 1/3 the population or higher) get sick while trying to do any work in a moving vehicle. They can't read anything, write anything, stare at a screen or they get sick. Solve that problem first, and then we'll talk.
2) Even if autonomous vehicles enable longer commutes, that also means that 'fun' stuff is going to be farther away. The day is still limited to 24 hours, the vast majority aren't going to live in BFE or in rural environments to save a tiny bit of money.
3) There is very little evidence that the vast majority are willing to handle a commute much longer than 30 minutes. That's right at the median across the entire US - LA and NYC included. Those two are just slightly longer than mid-tier metros. People move to different metros if their commute is not affordable and sustainable.
4) building for cars is still a choice your city is making, even if it seems like a foregone conclusion. Not every city is making the same choices in exactly the same way.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:37 AM on November 11
1) Just like VR, a ton of people (like 1/3 the population or higher) get sick while trying to do any work in a moving vehicle. They can't read anything, write anything, stare at a screen or they get sick. Solve that problem first, and then we'll talk.
2) Even if autonomous vehicles enable longer commutes, that also means that 'fun' stuff is going to be farther away. The day is still limited to 24 hours, the vast majority aren't going to live in BFE or in rural environments to save a tiny bit of money.
3) There is very little evidence that the vast majority are willing to handle a commute much longer than 30 minutes. That's right at the median across the entire US - LA and NYC included. Those two are just slightly longer than mid-tier metros. People move to different metros if their commute is not affordable and sustainable.
4) building for cars is still a choice your city is making, even if it seems like a foregone conclusion. Not every city is making the same choices in exactly the same way.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:37 AM on November 11
That seemed a bit sensitive. But I do thank you for sharing the demo information, because I had a feeling the gap-filling measures of Uber/Lyft/cabs were probably pretty touch and go in the suburbs still. If anything, I would guess they're even worse in parts of the country that lack Metro DC's very well funded transit system.
And autonomous vehicles could help with that, but I don't know that they would be more useful than Uber/Lyft/cabs, because it's still a matter of supply and demand. Ironically, autonomous vehicles would probably be much more functional in the suburbs, because traffic is lighter and more heavily policed. It's a conundrum for sure.
To be honest, I think the main problem with autonomous vehicles is human-driven vehicles. The erroneous and unpredictable behavior of the human driver will always be a problem, because a machine can't control for it. If all the vehicles were self-driving, the system would actually work.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:09 AM on November 11 [1 favorite]
And autonomous vehicles could help with that, but I don't know that they would be more useful than Uber/Lyft/cabs, because it's still a matter of supply and demand. Ironically, autonomous vehicles would probably be much more functional in the suburbs, because traffic is lighter and more heavily policed. It's a conundrum for sure.
To be honest, I think the main problem with autonomous vehicles is human-driven vehicles. The erroneous and unpredictable behavior of the human driver will always be a problem, because a machine can't control for it. If all the vehicles were self-driving, the system would actually work.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:09 AM on November 11 [1 favorite]
I had a feeling the gap-filling measures of Uber/Lyft/cabs were probably pretty touch and go in the suburbs still
Uber is generally great in suburbs because suburban people don't mind if you park your normal car with a sticker on the street or in your driveway, but if you parked an actual yellowcab there? No good. Also Uber generally brought taxi service to suburbs, because they generally aren't lucrative enough to prowl around for cabs, though they sort of were available for call and long waits.
I don't know anything about Uber in Fredrick MD, but the '30 minutes' to get a ride sort of strikes me as a pretty normal for a distant exurb.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:43 AM on November 11
Uber is generally great in suburbs because suburban people don't mind if you park your normal car with a sticker on the street or in your driveway, but if you parked an actual yellowcab there? No good. Also Uber generally brought taxi service to suburbs, because they generally aren't lucrative enough to prowl around for cabs, though they sort of were available for call and long waits.
I don't know anything about Uber in Fredrick MD, but the '30 minutes' to get a ride sort of strikes me as a pretty normal for a distant exurb.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:43 AM on November 11
It’s true the US has a lot of deeply car-dependent postWWII developments, but we didn’t build them to last and everything in them is likely to need rebuilding within our lifetimes. We could have an overall plan that remodeled each piece towards less car-dependence and ecological damage as it has to be replaced. This is how the West Coast requires earthquake upgrades generally, and Washington State mosaics salmon protection into agricultural land, and the counties around Seattle get sidewalks built in densifying neighborhoods. Piece by piece and it seems pointless until the last bit clicks into place, but no useful thing was ever torn down by mandate.
posted by clew at 9:48 AM on November 11 [4 favorites]
posted by clew at 9:48 AM on November 11 [4 favorites]
There are self driving cars right now and they’re safer than human operated cars.
While both of those things are true as far as I can tell, self-driving cars still seem to me like a solution looking for a problem. Cars suck, give us more trains. Self-driving buses might fill a gap but they would inevitably be policed enough to elide any cost savings from just having an actual person driving the vehicle.
posted by aspersioncast at 9:55 AM on November 11 [2 favorites]
While both of those things are true as far as I can tell, self-driving cars still seem to me like a solution looking for a problem. Cars suck, give us more trains. Self-driving buses might fill a gap but they would inevitably be policed enough to elide any cost savings from just having an actual person driving the vehicle.
posted by aspersioncast at 9:55 AM on November 11 [2 favorites]
Everybody having a self driving cart and living super far away from their work because they can sleep in their commute.... that seems extra bad.
Using self-driving car/vans/mini-bus + ride hailing to organize public transport in areas with density too low to sustain a usable bus lane... that seems like a win to me.
Now option 2 would probably not what you'd pick if you did it from scratch, but redesigning whole suburbs or city neighborhoods is not in the cards, or at least not quickly. Leveraging autonomous vehicles to provide public transport allows for more smaller vehicles that'll bring people to the hubs/bigger trunk lines using existing transport infrastructure, which is a huge win since this is the stupidly expensive part.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 1:16 PM on November 11 [1 favorite]
Using self-driving car/vans/mini-bus + ride hailing to organize public transport in areas with density too low to sustain a usable bus lane... that seems like a win to me.
Now option 2 would probably not what you'd pick if you did it from scratch, but redesigning whole suburbs or city neighborhoods is not in the cards, or at least not quickly. Leveraging autonomous vehicles to provide public transport allows for more smaller vehicles that'll bring people to the hubs/bigger trunk lines using existing transport infrastructure, which is a huge win since this is the stupidly expensive part.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 1:16 PM on November 11 [1 favorite]
Transit is never going to be workable because it is low-density. What are you going to do, run buses that only carry 2 or 3 people a day? It makes no sense
My city has for a while been trialing on-demand public buses that do run regardless of how many people are in them. Coupled with the recent change to cap all public transport fares at 50c per trip (free for seniors and veterans outside weekday peak times), if you happen to live in one of the two trial areas, you can book a trip by phone or app and, if you have a disability or for some reason are unable to get to the nearest bus stop, the bus will come to your door. This trial is in response to some of the scenarios mentioned in this thread - endless unchecked suburban sprawl with no thought given to how people would get around.
But what I think is more important is what politicians aren't speaking about in public. There seems to finally be an understanding at the state and local government level that public transport cannot and should not be seen as a complete 'user pays' service and must be publically funded (just like roads are). The actual cost of providing safe, useable public transport far exceeds the capacity to pay for those who need it and I remember (but can't find a source) that it used to cost our state government something like $12 for every passenger trip on trains, above the fares collected, so the cost of effectively scrapping fares isn't actually that great (estimated about $30M a year). The 50c fare cap reflects that and I think the reasons they made it 50c rather than free (because the cost of collecting that 50c far exceeds the revenue) were so they can track passenger usage (I find this reasonable) but also so that homeless people don't just live on trains (not reasonable).
First of all, congratulations; I'm not sure if everybody who read this sentence understands the implications, but you are obviously fantastically wealthy. I hope that your position does not become too horrible once Trump takes office again, but if it does, you can always sell that house and become a millionaire, so that must feel nice.
Wow that was uncalled for.
Absolutely uncalled for, but entirely predictable. Mentioning that you own more than a single hovel with a leaky roof here is like pouring blood in shark-infested water.
posted by dg at 2:58 PM on November 11
My city has for a while been trialing on-demand public buses that do run regardless of how many people are in them. Coupled with the recent change to cap all public transport fares at 50c per trip (free for seniors and veterans outside weekday peak times), if you happen to live in one of the two trial areas, you can book a trip by phone or app and, if you have a disability or for some reason are unable to get to the nearest bus stop, the bus will come to your door. This trial is in response to some of the scenarios mentioned in this thread - endless unchecked suburban sprawl with no thought given to how people would get around.
But what I think is more important is what politicians aren't speaking about in public. There seems to finally be an understanding at the state and local government level that public transport cannot and should not be seen as a complete 'user pays' service and must be publically funded (just like roads are). The actual cost of providing safe, useable public transport far exceeds the capacity to pay for those who need it and I remember (but can't find a source) that it used to cost our state government something like $12 for every passenger trip on trains, above the fares collected, so the cost of effectively scrapping fares isn't actually that great (estimated about $30M a year). The 50c fare cap reflects that and I think the reasons they made it 50c rather than free (because the cost of collecting that 50c far exceeds the revenue) were so they can track passenger usage (I find this reasonable) but also so that homeless people don't just live on trains (not reasonable).
First of all, congratulations; I'm not sure if everybody who read this sentence understands the implications, but you are obviously fantastically wealthy. I hope that your position does not become too horrible once Trump takes office again, but if it does, you can always sell that house and become a millionaire, so that must feel nice.
Wow that was uncalled for.
Absolutely uncalled for, but entirely predictable. Mentioning that you own more than a single hovel with a leaky roof here is like pouring blood in shark-infested water.
posted by dg at 2:58 PM on November 11
This video starts from a strong view that autonomous vehicles are bad and looks for 'facts' that support the position, so it doesn't have a lot of credibility to me,
Are you under the impression that the creators of a video are narrating the video in real time as they learn the information?
posted by stet at 3:01 PM on November 11 [1 favorite]
Are you under the impression that the creators of a video are narrating the video in real time as they learn the information?
posted by stet at 3:01 PM on November 11 [1 favorite]
Oh sweet jesus, that's exactly what joe rogan does, isn't it?
posted by stet at 3:01 PM on November 11 [1 favorite]
posted by stet at 3:01 PM on November 11 [1 favorite]
First of all, congratulations; I'm not sure if everybody who read this sentence understands the implications, but you are obviously fantastically wealthy
It has been pointed out that this was a shitty thing to think/write, but I'd add that the DMV has large numbers of civil servants in the foreign service who make modest government wages, own modest homes and nevertheless spend part of their lives overseas (in addition to all the faculty, military, and various other not rich segments of the local population who happen to live in rich counties). They are often making significant sacrifices to be able to do so.
To the topic at hand though, the capital beltway area is one of the ripest possible markets for self-driving cars, but we actually have pretty functional public transit, which is where all that car money should go because self-driving cars are VC techbro dystopian bullshit.
posted by aspersioncast at 3:06 PM on November 11 [1 favorite]
It has been pointed out that this was a shitty thing to think/write, but I'd add that the DMV has large numbers of civil servants in the foreign service who make modest government wages, own modest homes and nevertheless spend part of their lives overseas (in addition to all the faculty, military, and various other not rich segments of the local population who happen to live in rich counties). They are often making significant sacrifices to be able to do so.
To the topic at hand though, the capital beltway area is one of the ripest possible markets for self-driving cars, but we actually have pretty functional public transit, which is where all that car money should go because self-driving cars are VC techbro dystopian bullshit.
posted by aspersioncast at 3:06 PM on November 11 [1 favorite]
Are you under the impression that the creators of a video are narrating the video in real time as they learn the information?
No, I'm under the impression that the creators of a video are arranging their narration and every other part of the video in a way that supports a specific point of view. Which is perfectly OK for them to do, of course - it's their video and they don't have to give a single fuck what I think of it. However, as a persuasive tool, it doesn't have credibility with me because I'd prefer a more balanced look at the issue. I do think many of their points have at least some truth behind them and some don't, but the tone of the video is more like a sales pitch than something informative.
posted by dg at 3:32 PM on November 11
No, I'm under the impression that the creators of a video are arranging their narration and every other part of the video in a way that supports a specific point of view. Which is perfectly OK for them to do, of course - it's their video and they don't have to give a single fuck what I think of it. However, as a persuasive tool, it doesn't have credibility with me because I'd prefer a more balanced look at the issue. I do think many of their points have at least some truth behind them and some don't, but the tone of the video is more like a sales pitch than something informative.
posted by dg at 3:32 PM on November 11
Metafilter: Mentioning that you own more than a single hovel with a leaky roof here is like pouring blood in shark-infested water.
posted by sammyo at 6:12 PM on November 11
posted by sammyo at 6:12 PM on November 11
The reddit self driving cars subreddit (/r/SelfDrivingCars/) is filled with well informed advocates and was not impressed with the quality of that video.
The current generation of robot-cars is held back by a combination of expensive hardware and optics along with it being an un-fully-solved software problem. But did you hear about the robot-car plowing into a busy hair salon and injuring dozens? No, because that's one of many things that happen with human operated cars that will never be automated.
The head of google cars I heard talk was over optimistic (before covid times) when he hoped his preteen would not need a drivers license. But there are a half dozen cities where you can call for a taxi without a human. Now. Today. So 5 years or 20, it'll be pervasive, and costs of tech just keep dropping.
And it will certainly modify city culture, I doubt anyone has any valid prognostication of the actual details. Will it be cost effective for non-rich? Hope so.
posted by sammyo at 6:25 PM on November 11
The current generation of robot-cars is held back by a combination of expensive hardware and optics along with it being an un-fully-solved software problem. But did you hear about the robot-car plowing into a busy hair salon and injuring dozens? No, because that's one of many things that happen with human operated cars that will never be automated.
The head of google cars I heard talk was over optimistic (before covid times) when he hoped his preteen would not need a drivers license. But there are a half dozen cities where you can call for a taxi without a human. Now. Today. So 5 years or 20, it'll be pervasive, and costs of tech just keep dropping.
And it will certainly modify city culture, I doubt anyone has any valid prognostication of the actual details. Will it be cost effective for non-rich? Hope so.
posted by sammyo at 6:25 PM on November 11
There are self driving cars right now and they’re safer than human operated cars.
There are no self-driving cars that function outside of a snow-free, salt-free, environment. This eliminates a sizable portion of roads, for a large population of the country, for a respectable portion of the year. Who will be buying seasonal self-driving cars?
There are no self-driving cars whose sensors can't be occluded, rendering them useless/dangerous. This happens with heavy rains, traffic, sun glare, etc. I've been in them when it happens. I've seen them hit things when it happens, even in controlled testing facilities. I've had them try to steer me into inanimate objects, had them try to drive me off the road, and had them slam the brakes on out of nowhere at highway speeds.
These are sizable problems that do not currently have technological solutions. They've been serious problems for many, many years.
posted by jordantwodelta at 6:56 PM on November 11 [5 favorites]
There are no self-driving cars that function outside of a snow-free, salt-free, environment. This eliminates a sizable portion of roads, for a large population of the country, for a respectable portion of the year. Who will be buying seasonal self-driving cars?
There are no self-driving cars whose sensors can't be occluded, rendering them useless/dangerous. This happens with heavy rains, traffic, sun glare, etc. I've been in them when it happens. I've seen them hit things when it happens, even in controlled testing facilities. I've had them try to steer me into inanimate objects, had them try to drive me off the road, and had them slam the brakes on out of nowhere at highway speeds.
These are sizable problems that do not currently have technological solutions. They've been serious problems for many, many years.
posted by jordantwodelta at 6:56 PM on November 11 [5 favorites]
But did you hear about the robot-car plowing into a busy hair salon and injuring dozens? No, because that's one of many things that happen with human operated cars that will never be automated.
One of the major issues of Tesla's Full Self-Driving system is that the system has "hallucinated" and put the car into something it should not have, killing or injuring the driver in the process. Not to mention that the Not Just Bikes video shows clips of autonomous cars running red lights and cutting off other cars and pedestrians (as well as that one that seemed to want to run over grandma like it thought it was a reindeer.) The idea that autonomous vehicles will somehow be infallible is silly at best (and the video in the OP points out that we're already seeing the transition from "AVs will stop roadway fatalities" to "Eh, AVs are on average safer than humans.")
And it will certainly modify city culture, I doubt anyone has any valid prognostication of the actual details.
I rather think the scenario that the video put out is plausible, and backed up by actual real world changes.
In short, cheerleaders for technology tend to not have good track records on critical assessment of technology.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:35 PM on November 11 [5 favorites]
One of the major issues of Tesla's Full Self-Driving system is that the system has "hallucinated" and put the car into something it should not have, killing or injuring the driver in the process. Not to mention that the Not Just Bikes video shows clips of autonomous cars running red lights and cutting off other cars and pedestrians (as well as that one that seemed to want to run over grandma like it thought it was a reindeer.) The idea that autonomous vehicles will somehow be infallible is silly at best (and the video in the OP points out that we're already seeing the transition from "AVs will stop roadway fatalities" to "Eh, AVs are on average safer than humans.")
And it will certainly modify city culture, I doubt anyone has any valid prognostication of the actual details.
I rather think the scenario that the video put out is plausible, and backed up by actual real world changes.
In short, cheerleaders for technology tend to not have good track records on critical assessment of technology.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:35 PM on November 11 [5 favorites]
Mod note: One deleted. Don't attack other members. Don't make things personal. Don't assume you know the details of someone else's life. Don't be a jerk.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:09 AM on November 12 [1 favorite]
posted by taz (staff) at 12:09 AM on November 12 [1 favorite]
There are no self-driving cars that function outside of a snow-free, salt-free, environment. This eliminates a sizable portion of roads, for a large population of the country, for a respectable portion of the year. Who will be buying seasonal self-driving cars?
There are convertibles and motorcycles and those topless 3 wheel motorcycle type things and skiboats and jet skis? Are all of those vehicles also unsellable in the US because of cold and snow and salt? How much of a premium do you think self-driving cars will sell for? More than the cost of a seasonal-use vehicle or less?
I just don't think you are making the critical points you think you are.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:23 PM on November 12
There are convertibles and motorcycles and those topless 3 wheel motorcycle type things and skiboats and jet skis? Are all of those vehicles also unsellable in the US because of cold and snow and salt? How much of a premium do you think self-driving cars will sell for? More than the cost of a seasonal-use vehicle or less?
I just don't think you are making the critical points you think you are.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:23 PM on November 12
There are convertibles and motorcycles and those topless 3 wheel motorcycle type things and skiboats and jet skis? Are all of those vehicles also unsellable in the US because of cold and snow and salt?
The difference is that all of those things aren't being marketed as being able to handle bad weather - autonomous vehicles are. They are being marketed as a "solution" to driving, all while being unable to handle a parked delivery van.
And since AV companies aren't going to take no for a answer and it's turning out that the remaining problems are a lot harder to solve than thought ,we're going to have a choice - conform to AVs, or push back on a technology that continues to show problems.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:07 PM on November 12 [2 favorites]
The difference is that all of those things aren't being marketed as being able to handle bad weather - autonomous vehicles are. They are being marketed as a "solution" to driving, all while being unable to handle a parked delivery van.
And since AV companies aren't going to take no for a answer and it's turning out that the remaining problems are a lot harder to solve than thought ,we're going to have a choice - conform to AVs, or push back on a technology that continues to show problems.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:07 PM on November 12 [2 favorites]
There are no self-driving cars that function without remote human assistance, so currently the tech is just not scalable. Google-backed Waymo do not disclose results but are widely rumoured to be loosing money at a rate of $4 billion per year ($75,000,000 per week), and that's for just 700 cars, so around $5.7 million per car per year. They might turn it around as they did for loss making YouTube, but I'm not holding my breath.
posted by Lanark at 4:56 AM on November 13 [2 favorites]
posted by Lanark at 4:56 AM on November 13 [2 favorites]
There are no self-driving cars that function without remote human assistance, so currently the tech is just not scalable.
Waymo does not use humans in the loop.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:49 AM on November 13
Waymo does not use humans in the loop.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:49 AM on November 13
Waymo does not use humans in the loop.
The primary loop, sure. But it's ridiculous to think that they don't have remote operation abilities, and their "no comment" response speaks volumes. (We know about Cruise's remote observation thanks to the fallout from when one of their cars ran over and dragged a pedestrian who was knocked into its path.)
Which gets back to the argument that the video makes - namely:
* Autonomous vehicles are selling snake oil - as pointed out, the current testing is all being done in some of the most friendly environments for autonomous vehicles, and even then they're still having a lot of teething issues.
* The car-centric nature of North American city and transit design is driving the attractiveness of autonomous vehicles - in Europe and Asia, better transit makes cars less attractive as a modality, and thus the attractiveness of AVs are less there. It is the primacy of cars as a transit modality in NA that has helped push AVs here.
* AVs will just compound the issues with cars - Not only will AVs compound existing issues, but will introduce all new issues with roadways, as expectations will result in behaviors like being unable to charge for parking because users will just opt to let their car roam freely without paying.
* Ultimately, the answer is to end the primacy of the car as a transit modality, both by improving mass transit alongside removing the many hidden ways we subsidize car use. In doing so, this would also reduce the attractiveness of AVs.
And frankly, I agree. And I think that through all their videos, Not Just Bikes has made the point that we need to push back against the primacy of cars to get back our cities.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:17 AM on November 13 [3 favorites]
The primary loop, sure. But it's ridiculous to think that they don't have remote operation abilities, and their "no comment" response speaks volumes. (We know about Cruise's remote observation thanks to the fallout from when one of their cars ran over and dragged a pedestrian who was knocked into its path.)
Which gets back to the argument that the video makes - namely:
* Autonomous vehicles are selling snake oil - as pointed out, the current testing is all being done in some of the most friendly environments for autonomous vehicles, and even then they're still having a lot of teething issues.
* The car-centric nature of North American city and transit design is driving the attractiveness of autonomous vehicles - in Europe and Asia, better transit makes cars less attractive as a modality, and thus the attractiveness of AVs are less there. It is the primacy of cars as a transit modality in NA that has helped push AVs here.
* AVs will just compound the issues with cars - Not only will AVs compound existing issues, but will introduce all new issues with roadways, as expectations will result in behaviors like being unable to charge for parking because users will just opt to let their car roam freely without paying.
* Ultimately, the answer is to end the primacy of the car as a transit modality, both by improving mass transit alongside removing the many hidden ways we subsidize car use. In doing so, this would also reduce the attractiveness of AVs.
And frankly, I agree. And I think that through all their videos, Not Just Bikes has made the point that we need to push back against the primacy of cars to get back our cities.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:17 AM on November 13 [3 favorites]
clew - 'car-dependent postWWII developments, but we didn’t build them to last and everything in them is likely to need rebuilding within our lifetimes'
This is a very salient point, the lifespan of new buildings is generally around 50 years. They are not built to last, because that is not profitable. Due to a slew of biases humans assume what is current is normal, and struggle to envisage anything that is different. Both urban sprawl and high rise tower blocks generally have negative health impacts on human beings, and there is no need to repeat those mistakes in the next couple of decades. The majority of people feel more comfortable in human scale developments, and by more comfortable I mean it is better for all aspects of their existence. This doesn't mean we don't enjoy wide open vistas, but a comfortable place to live is an environment that relates to the human scale.
Quiet cities are also better for humans, but that doesn't mean silent. It just means less unhealthy noise. The noise generated by cars is predominantly from their tyres at speeds of over 40kmph, so whether self driving, electric or dinosaur burning, they are still intrusive. There are some mitigating measures that can be undertaken to reduce road noise, but overall human beings don't benefit from being within audible range of car traffic, or other noisy road users.
This idea that cities are 'incredibly flat' seems very likely. I am pretty sure I got this insightful link from Mefi.
'I think this can be seen as a symptom of something wrong with the physical world we live in. I think that almost everyone is chronically understimulated.
Spending time alone in the forest has convinced me of this. The sensory world of a forest is not only much richer than any indoor environment, it is abundant with the sorts of sensations that people seem to "crave" chronically, and the more I've noticed and specifically focused on this, the more I've noticed that the "modern" human's surroundings are incredibly flat in what they offer to the senses.'
At this time of year in the temperate regions in the northern hemisphere it might be relevant to think about how much fun it is to stomp through, kick, throw, and dive into, piles of dry leaves shed by the deciduous trees.
Healthy spaces that are good for the environment and humanity are achievable, and have been the norm for the majority of human existence. Creating places to live that centre human need over accommodating cars shouldn't be a radical idea. Monica Bielskyte's protopia is one way of considering the paradigm shifts that would bring us into a healthier place.
I recommend Emma Newman's Imagining Tomorrow podcasts for many ideas that could be incorporated into the post capitalist-realism world. I also strongly recommend her Planetfall series in machete order for a very scarily prescient near future Sci-Fi view of the alternative. Audiobooks are available, narrated by the author, if you want more of her lovely voice.
'This reading order is also viable, simply giving you a different experience:
After Atlas
Atlas Alone
Before Mars
Planetfall
Before, After, Alone'
posted by asok at 3:14 PM on November 13 [1 favorite]
This is a very salient point, the lifespan of new buildings is generally around 50 years. They are not built to last, because that is not profitable. Due to a slew of biases humans assume what is current is normal, and struggle to envisage anything that is different. Both urban sprawl and high rise tower blocks generally have negative health impacts on human beings, and there is no need to repeat those mistakes in the next couple of decades. The majority of people feel more comfortable in human scale developments, and by more comfortable I mean it is better for all aspects of their existence. This doesn't mean we don't enjoy wide open vistas, but a comfortable place to live is an environment that relates to the human scale.
Quiet cities are also better for humans, but that doesn't mean silent. It just means less unhealthy noise. The noise generated by cars is predominantly from their tyres at speeds of over 40kmph, so whether self driving, electric or dinosaur burning, they are still intrusive. There are some mitigating measures that can be undertaken to reduce road noise, but overall human beings don't benefit from being within audible range of car traffic, or other noisy road users.
This idea that cities are 'incredibly flat' seems very likely. I am pretty sure I got this insightful link from Mefi.
'I think this can be seen as a symptom of something wrong with the physical world we live in. I think that almost everyone is chronically understimulated.
Spending time alone in the forest has convinced me of this. The sensory world of a forest is not only much richer than any indoor environment, it is abundant with the sorts of sensations that people seem to "crave" chronically, and the more I've noticed and specifically focused on this, the more I've noticed that the "modern" human's surroundings are incredibly flat in what they offer to the senses.'
At this time of year in the temperate regions in the northern hemisphere it might be relevant to think about how much fun it is to stomp through, kick, throw, and dive into, piles of dry leaves shed by the deciduous trees.
Healthy spaces that are good for the environment and humanity are achievable, and have been the norm for the majority of human existence. Creating places to live that centre human need over accommodating cars shouldn't be a radical idea. Monica Bielskyte's protopia is one way of considering the paradigm shifts that would bring us into a healthier place.
I recommend Emma Newman's Imagining Tomorrow podcasts for many ideas that could be incorporated into the post capitalist-realism world. I also strongly recommend her Planetfall series in machete order for a very scarily prescient near future Sci-Fi view of the alternative. Audiobooks are available, narrated by the author, if you want more of her lovely voice.
'This reading order is also viable, simply giving you a different experience:
After Atlas
Atlas Alone
Before Mars
Planetfall
Before, After, Alone'
posted by asok at 3:14 PM on November 13 [1 favorite]
I don't know anything about Uber in Fredrick MD, but the '30 minutes' to get a ride sort of strikes me as a pretty normal for a distant exurb.
I had to take a break from this thread because of the hateful comments (that were since thankfully deleted), just now read the rest and feel I have to comment on this.
The neighborhood I'm referring to is on the edges of Alexandria, VA, in Fairfax County. For those of you not familiar with the DMV, that is most definitely NOT an "exurb". It is barely outside the beltway, is still very high-density but what I'd call shitty high density - no walkable areas, weird winding roads, but detached SFHs are still over a million. Fredericksburg, Germantown, Manassas are exurbs.
And sorry but waiting 30 mins for a ride (if I can get one at all) is not something acceptable to me. I bought in the area because it's where I could afford to buy, not because I hate transit.
posted by photo guy at 9:50 AM on November 21
I had to take a break from this thread because of the hateful comments (that were since thankfully deleted), just now read the rest and feel I have to comment on this.
The neighborhood I'm referring to is on the edges of Alexandria, VA, in Fairfax County. For those of you not familiar with the DMV, that is most definitely NOT an "exurb". It is barely outside the beltway, is still very high-density but what I'd call shitty high density - no walkable areas, weird winding roads, but detached SFHs are still over a million. Fredericksburg, Germantown, Manassas are exurbs.
And sorry but waiting 30 mins for a ride (if I can get one at all) is not something acceptable to me. I bought in the area because it's where I could afford to buy, not because I hate transit.
posted by photo guy at 9:50 AM on November 21
« Older "To understand that America would rather elect a... | Dobrawa Czocher - Live Newer »
Personally, I am absolutely an avid transit booster and strong proponent of transit-oriented development - I have lived in countries with amazing transit and have seen the real difference it can make. However, I also know most of the US isn't built that way, and razing entire cities to rebuild them better isn't feasible nor realistic.
But expecting people to drive themselves isn't feasible either, cars are freaking expensive and even those of us who can drive will eventually hit a point where we cannot drive anymore. Many of these people are in areas where taxis are nonexistent and/or stupidly expensive - these are low-density areas after all. Self-driving cars, if properly done, provides a badly needed solution.
Yes tech companies suck, I know, but pretending this isn't a problem is just burying your head in the sand.
posted by photo guy at 12:22 PM on November 10 [7 favorites]