I assume if there were more self-driving cars, fewer people would own cars. I think more people would take Ubers, Lyfts, and other ride sharing services. So I think that could reduce the need for parking and the amount of traffic just by increasing the utilization rate of cars.
Really? Do you find Uber and Lyft to be affordable or a financially sensible means of regular transportation?
The idea is that the cost of a ride would go way down because you don’t need to compensate a driver.
How times have changed since Tesla was untouchable here. What happened and why does everyone talk like they've always hated Tesla (and Elon)? Surely it's mostly the same crowd as when Tesla was loved and Elon a superstar.
Musk bought Twitter and fired 50% od the staff without Twitter crashing, which exposed how overstaffed and overpayed thise guys were
He could have fired 100% and Twitter wouldn’t crash.
Mainstream full self driving would just create massive traffic and gridlock - pointless in the end. The induced demand would outweigh the benefits. States are better off acknowledging that sprawling car dependent cities are not sustainable. High frequency busses in the interim with rail transit is the real solution. Current self driving technology plus some key infrastructure changes with dedicated bus lanes and prio…
Is this true even if you account for the fact that cities can reclaim lanes and buildings dedicated for parking? I would think that a lot of congestion is related cars having to be parked near a specific venue such as a restaurant or an arena (especially in the latter case where there is a gathering of 1000+ people).
The thing about arenas is those 1,000 people all want to show up and leave at the same time.. so those 1,000 cars will all have the exact same demand and cause roving gridlock from wherever they are parked on the way to the arena.
How times have changed since Tesla was untouchable here. What happened and why does everyone talk like they've always hated Tesla (and Elon)? Surely it's mostly the same crowd as when Tesla was loved and Elon a superstar.
It might not be. I've never liked Elon, a view that was truly cemented during the "pedo guy" incident. In the past that meant I just ignored fawning articles or comment threads about this modern "Tony Stark" as I knew any critical comments would result in a pile-on from his supporters.
Conversely, herds are gonna herd, and Musk fans are probably a lot less vocal these days compared to the days of peak Elon hero worship.
Mainstream full self driving would just create massive traffic and gridlock - pointless in the end. The induced demand would outweigh the benefits. States are better off acknowledging that sprawling car dependent cities are not sustainable. High frequency busses in the interim with rail transit is the real solution. Current self driving technology plus some key infrastructure changes with dedicated bus lanes and prio…
I assume if there were more self-driving cars, fewer people would own cars. I think more people would take Ubers, Lyfts, and other ride sharing services. So I think that could reduce the need for parking and the amount of traffic just by increasing the utilization rate of cars.
I don’t think self-driving cars lead to fewer people owning cars, in fact it’s quite the opposite. With FSD, those who don’t like driving can deal with owning a car to do necessary transportation tasks (e.g. commuting), instead of giving it up for alternative methods because they don’t want to drive consciously/presently.
> Seriously though there are ways of reducing traffic on the roads like increased registration taxes, raising the price of tolls, gas price hikes (or equivalent dc fast charging price hikes). Gridlock won’t be a problem. Yes, this is why traffic is so minimal in the top 10 MSAs in America.
It just means prices are not high enough. Make it $100 to travel at rush hour on a particular stretch of road, and congestion will go away very quickly.
OK, so how do you keep the politicians in office that enact such legislation and if you say you want to create a Maoist state either how is this preferable or how do you stop rebellion?
This retort always comes up, and the answer is that different problems have different solutions. Solving each problem directly and in the simplest way possible results in the fewest unintended consequences. Problem is congestion, aka too many cars in x location at y time? Make it more expensive. Problem is some people are too poor? Redistribute wealth via progressive taxation.
the retort comes up because charging egregiously to use public roads that they're all paying for with their tax money makes no sense.
The idea that a single person is paying a specific part of infrastructure makes no sense. My taxes do not pay for a specific road, they pay for the operations for society as a whole.
Sometimes, that would mean my taxes are going to pay for something which hurts me in the short term, if I want to get to a future where individual cars are not used as much and walking/bicycling/public transit are possible.