Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The self-driving car is a red herring

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 320 posts

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#181

Post by clairity »

thescriptkiddie wrote: post #125
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental prerequisite for functional mass transit is a high population density. That's why it works in NYC and doesn't work in Los Angeles. But that means it's not just a matter of building mass transit. First you have to build taller buildings. And even then there are going to be places where it's just not happening. It doesn't matter how you change the zoning, nobody is going to build skyscrapers in Pine Blu…

You don't have to build skyscrapers to achieve high population density, you just have to build 3-6 story buildings close together. See Paris for an example. And you can have functional public transport at modest population density as long as the road network is a well connected grid and not a maze of cul-de-sacs. See Toronto for an example. I agree that most of the US has been designed explicitly around the car, but…

LA has good public transportation but car-induced sprawl makes it less useful than it could be, and car culture here makes public transportation less appealing and less used than it could be. but if you live & work near one of the train lines, it’s awesome.

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#182

Post by kanox »

AstralStorm wrote: post #29
barnacled wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am extremely skeptical of the boring project. The claimed money saving (a 10x improvement vs. every single tunnel digger in the world without any evidence to back it up?) the safety issues of a car breaking down in a tunnel or being brought up and down, the enormous cost with digging deeper tunnels, etc. etc. Road tunnels exist and have been built all around the world, these kinds of ideas have been tried and ultim…

Why tunnels instead of the Japanese/German solution of ramps/viaducts? In the same vein, why underground instead of light rail? See, open air systems like those are much easier to service. Removing a crashed car from that requires just a big crane.

Because tunnels can go under buildings, roads and other tunnels with very little interference.

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#183

Post by thrav »

Grimm1 wrote: post #153

I know people love public transport because of the supposed larger benefit to society but having ridden NYC public transport for over 7 years now I absolutely loath it. The experience is horrible almost every day. Between being crammed in the cars, the mentally unstable accosting you, the lack of cleanliness and the occasional assault I'm simply not willing to deal with that continuously. I put up with it because it…

You could just as easily be writing about BART. The United States fails hard at public transit, even where we’re richest and it makes the most sense. I use it all the time, but I can’t really blame the people who refuse.

Tokyo was in a league of its own (2 weeks experience). London Tube was mostly great, with some minor flaws here and there (9 months experience).

This is without even beginning to compare the reach and convenience of stations in each system.

This feels like looking at our ability to Lockdown for COVID. Even when we attempted to fully close, we sucked at it, and got the worst of both worlds (economic crush + virus still spread). At some point, you have to look in the mirror and stop trying to be something you’re not willing and/or able to be and find a new approach.

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#184

Post by chrisco255 »

cannabis_sam wrote: post #178
kanox wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wish people would stop claiming that the solution to cars is walking or public transport. I don't have a car either but claiming that people should "stop driving" is not a serious approach. Cars are extremely useful and are not going anywhere. They have problems like carbon emissions and being extremely dangerous but those will have to be solved while preserving the fundamental utility of a cars: They are in…

>Cars are extremely useful I agree, but I also think this is part of the problem. Choosing to use public transportation for longer distances is a significant personal cost, while the benefit of lower costs in externalities is almost invisible. Conversely, driving a car has a comparatively lower personal cost, essentially negative, since it increase freedom of movement. But the externalities are conveniently hidden by…

Public transportation is synchronous by necessity. Private transportation is asynchronous. There are tremendous economic benefits to asynchronous transport. The truth is a robust system would have a healthy mix of both.

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#185

Post by jayd16 »

sirsar wrote: post #116
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental prerequisite for functional mass transit is a high population density. That's why it works in NYC and doesn't work in Los Angeles. But that means it's not just a matter of building mass transit. First you have to build taller buildings. And even then there are going to be places where it's just not happening. It doesn't matter how you change the zoning, nobody is going to build skyscrapers in Pine Blu…

LA has an order of magnitude more population than is required for functioning public transit. But you're right they don't have the density. The key is to realize the cars themselves killed density . Parking lots, parking spaces, and extra lanes all conspire to push humans and human spaces further apart. This then makes walking less feasible, cars more required, and more space required to accommodate those cars in a f…

LA also happens to have a vast bus system that is heavily used.

We do not have subways partly because it would be very hard to build them in LA's geology. Seismic activity as well things like natural tar pits.

Historically I don't think its right to say cars killed the density. LA was several cities that grew into each other. Part of the reason LA is so wide is because of white flight to the outskirts. Do you build transit for something like that?

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#186

Post by khrbrt »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #97
Kaze404 wrote: post #81

I have a feeling I'll be down voted to hell for this, but self driving cars always felt like going the complete wrong direction for me. Aside from small personal satisfaction to the few that will be able to afford them, how is revolving our infrastructure and culture around them any better than simply investing in public transportation by making it a more feasible option for people? I'm not in the US, and while the p…

The fundamental prerequisite for functional mass transit is a high population density. That's why it works in NYC and doesn't work in Los Angeles. But that means it's not just a matter of building mass transit. First you have to build taller buildings. And even then there are going to be places where it's just not happening. It doesn't matter how you change the zoning, nobody is going to build skyscrapers in Pine Blu…

Los Angeles is spread out because it had functional mass transit at the turn of the last century. The Red Car interurban line sprawled out from downtown into the county and housing popped up six blocks on the side from every stop. Later mass car ownership filled in the blocks further out and the space in-between stops.

In that same period, just about every large town and small city had a trolley line.

You don't need skyscrapers for mass transit. Just enough political will to keep it funded.

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#187

Post by zamfi »

atharris wrote: post #107
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental prerequisite for functional mass transit is a high population density. That's why it works in NYC and doesn't work in Los Angeles. But that means it's not just a matter of building mass transit. First you have to build taller buildings. And even then there are going to be places where it's just not happening. It doesn't matter how you change the zoning, nobody is going to build skyscrapers in Pine Blu…

The rest of the world is rife with small, rural towns that nevertheless have great public transit systems, or at least ones that are more effective than what we see in the US. The major difference is that these places are willing to invest in the public sphere, and they're by and large willing to permit construction that is not car-centric (i.e., no parking minima to subsidize drivers).

Could you give a few examples of small rural towns where people can afford cars but instead the town has great public transit? Genuinely curious!

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#188

Post by question000 »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #83
question000 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok make any kind of verifiable prediction about this and we will see if it happens or not.

I'll play. It will be possible to buy large amounts of crude oil without owning USDs by 2026.

I mean this wouldn't necessarily mean a collapse, but I really applaud the relative specificity and reasonableness of this claim.

Still don't think it will happen.

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#189

Post by aantix »

Kaze404 wrote: post #81

I have a feeling I'll be down voted to hell for this, but self driving cars always felt like going the complete wrong direction for me. Aside from small personal satisfaction to the few that will be able to afford them, how is revolving our infrastructure and culture around them any better than simply investing in public transportation by making it a more feasible option for people? I'm not in the US, and while the p…

The city that I live in is very spread out.

The idea of hopping from a subway to a bus to another bus just to get to a doctor's appointment sounds awful. And if I had to take 4 young kids along with me for the trip, double awful.

For the denser cities - my wife and I lived in SF for close to five years. As our family grew, and the city space grew more populous, parking spots were really rare. Getting to a pediatric appointment was misery. We knew the above scenario was our future. And it sounded completely miserable. So we moved to a spread out, suburban city.

I want to go directly to the location and start the errand as soon as possible. I hate waiting or slow buses or waiting for people to get on, get off. I just want to be able to go.

Re: The self-driving car is a red herring

#190

Post by clairity »

shadowgovt wrote: post #102
Kaze404 wrote: post #81

I have a feeling I'll be down voted to hell for this, but self driving cars always felt like going the complete wrong direction for me. Aside from small personal satisfaction to the few that will be able to afford them, how is revolving our infrastructure and culture around them any better than simply investing in public transportation by making it a more feasible option for people? I'm not in the US, and while the p…

A lot of self-driving is likely to replace taxi service, not make its way to private ownership. The advantages of individual vehicles for motion around a city are diminished wait times and arbitrary point-to-point linkage. One is not constrained to traveling only on the public transit arteries plus foot-travel distance. (The tradeoff of fossil fuel consumption is huge and should not be ignored, however).

electric kick scooters (and bikes) make foot-travel distance less relevant in many places, extending the serviceable radius around a station from 1/3 mile to 2-3 miles. we just need to turn street parking into dedicated bike/scooter lanes to make it safe enough for more people to choose this option.
Post reply on HN