Rails don't work for the last mile. The great thing about cars is that they don't suffer from the last mile problem.
It seems like a much better plan is to separate drivers from other people more rigorously, and maybe mandate people drive the last-mile themselves (with AI help, obviously).
What happens if the 'rail' was actually a specific, demarcated line that autonomous self-driving cars used on specifically selected roads that augmented existing public transportation options? That would alert human drivers/pedestrians/bicyclists to be a bit more careful - similar to the brightly colored green lanes that are starting to be provided for bicyclists.
Similarly for long haul trucking applications - could the far left lane/carpool lane be safely dedicated to autonomous trucks during the hours of midnight-3AM with some bright blinking signs paid for by the autonomous trucking industry trade group?
This. I think this is the correct solution, with the self driving cars refusing to self drive on roads that don't have this infrastructure. I actually wonder how much money it would take to cover, say 95% of roads in the US with some kind of "smart paint" that can be detected in rain, through snow, and when covered in dirt or gravel, vs the amount of money spent on developing the lidar.
Was gonna post almost the same idea. You don't need a true "rail" to keep an autonomous car from mowing over people. You need something that's pretty binary "am I on my pre-approved area or not". A special kind of paint or something very low-tech could be the solution.
There will still be the last-mile problem. Even if the "rail" is just cheap paint, you'll almost definitely never have 100% of roads painted, and paint wears over time or gets buried under snow etc.
Eventually we're looking for ways to add "more 9s" to the reliability and safety. A non-rail rail could add a bunch of 9s to well-trafficked routes.
As someone who lived in West LA for years and saw the new line come in, I'll stop you right there. Cities like LA, Mexico-City, San Jose, etc. are not well designed and trying to re-invent them is going to take one hell of an earthquake.
I used to live at 16th and Santa Monica and was really excited about the Expo Line. I ended up moving before it showed up because it was many years late (I'm glad it finally got built though!)
I used to ride a recumbent to UCLA now and then because I had a death wish, and it shocked me that it took 25 minutes and yet people spent 60 minutes in traffic in their cars every day just to get across the 405.
You're right, though, those cities are mostly lost causes, more for the attitudes present in them than the infrastructure. Doesn't mean we can't try to make any new ones better though.
Oh man, the Expo line isn't synced with the lights, it's horrible. That and the bums like to go crazy and sit on the rail lines, causing jams at the street crossings. It's not that frequent, but it happens. It used to back up to Bundy on a bad day, now it's every day.
Riding a recumbent to UCLA from 16th is hardcore. Everyone I knew that rode in west LA got hit at least once, if not more.
Just ease the regulations on building height and density, and multi-story multi-family buildings will start to appear in good locations through free market capitalism.
My brother lived off Geary for a few years and went to a few public meetings on the proposed subway line they want to put under it. He was interested in the idea, as the N-Judah is a methadone clinic (last he was there a few years ago, caveats apply). He never saw such NIMYism and such tight resistance by the property owners on Geary to any improvements whatsoever.
You don't just ease regulations or really do anything 'big' in any city. Palms must be greased, and if you do not it is a horrific process that takes at least a decade.
I'm not saying that you are wrong about the free market. However, my brother thought that the most fantastic thing about the new Star Trek movies (esp. the new Wrath of Khan) was not the warp-drive, nor the aliens, but the very tall building in SF. Even in 400 years, there is no way the planning boards would allow such things.
The San Francisco Board is subordinate to the laws of the state of California. If California wants to ease regulations against denser urban areas, California can do it.
I mean, you aren't wrong, but you are unrealistic. Something like that will take years just to get to a final vote, and then the lawsuits will tie up the issues for at least 20 years. Say 30 years total, just to get to the point of a permit to build. To get things moving faster, you may need to re-write the CA constitution.
The billions being spent on self-driving cars cost less than the hundreds of billions it would take to convert the USA's cities to be even remotely well-designed.
Except after the billions on self driving cars you still have horribly designed cities.
If there is anything to be nostalgic about the past over, its how civil engineering projects of such scale were a lot more feasible when the complexity of doing them was so much lower.
Yeah, but converting all of our cities to 'well-designed' cities is not really an option at this point. Not only that, but millions and millions of people live in places that aren't cities.
Not even that. Nothing is stopping a small fleet of autonomous miniature vehicles from breaking off from the rail line, carrying people home, and returning. Lower speeds, lower mass, fewer deaths. We're only bound to the legacy car size by accommodating existing cars.
Feet work well in cooperative climates. They do not always work ‘well’ in Boston, Seattle, New York, Chicago, Detroit, etc. Consider not just basic walking, but carrying groceries, children or other items.
I invite anyone who buys into this sweeping generalization to walk a half mile in Las Vegas, NV; Tempe, AZ; Houston, TX; New Orleans, LA; or Tampa, FL in July or August.
Many cities in Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal see temperatures just as hot as Houston or Las Vegas. Yet public transport is just as common as in the rest of Europe.
Walking half a mile in 35 C (95 F) isn't an actual problem unless you have a medical condition or you are morbidly obese. For those very rare 40+ C (105+ F) days, throw an official midday siesta, or just shut everything down like for snow days.
>Walking half a mile in 35 C (95 F) isn't an actual problem unless you have a medical condition or you are morbidly obese.
Again with the hand waving as if this was a solved problem. Trust me - if you actually try to walk half a mile on a 90+ degree, high humidity day you will regret it. The issue isn't just infirmity - i.e. those prone to heat stroke or overweight, but one of comfort. If you actually try tooling around in Houston (for example) you'll end up soaked in sweat. It'll be worse if you're dressed for the office in long sleeves and slacks.
That's when you'll discover that more than the public need to adapt to public transportation uber alles. Can I use a shopping trolley for groceries? Sure. Can I cycle to work? No doubt. But what if your employer doesn't have showers available? Mine doesn't. I can't show up drenched in sweat looking like a wet rat and stinking all day of sweat. And that's exactly what'll happen if I ride the few miles I have to work. Even if I take a change of clothes to work I still have no place to shower and neither does anyone else unless they are health club members. There are many externalities you're just hand waving away. As someone who lives in this climate I assure you I'd love to see light rail everywhere but it just won't replace the last mile for people without drastic societal changes.
There's also the fact that bus and rail frequency needs to dramatically increase to entice riders and also accommodate them when they do come. Will people choose a 45 minute bus ride over a 15 minute drive? Particularly when on average you'll spend 7.5-10 minutes baking in the sun or lightly shaded by an un-airconditioned bus stop? Not unless forced to, no.
I'd love to see you deliver a dining room set, complete with a sofa, a love seat, an arm chair, a mattress with a frame, and an 85" TV using your feet.
Bit of a strawman, no? That's obviously a good use case for a van. But I never said we should completely eliminate all roads, did I? I just think the primacy of the automobile is worth questioning - moving people (and goods) is the goal, not moving cars.
I mean, I'd love to see you medevac a gravely wounded person from the middle of Arctic tundra to a hospital 120 miles away on your feet.. except I wouldn't, because we have helicopters for a reason. We don't assume you should have to use a helicopter to get groceries though.
Here in The Netherlands we use bikes. They're great; so much faster than driving for short distances. It helps that housing is for the vast majority of people within 10-15 mins cycle and the land being flat.
I've always wondered: how do disabled people get around in cities designed for bicycle travel? Mostly those powered wheelchairs? If so, how did they get around before the invention of those? (The answer in America has always been 'you put them in a car, and then they can go wherever a car can go.')
You see a lot of those electric wheelchairs. There are also special buses provided by the council. Disabled people get a personal budget for stuff like help in house and a mobility budget. Because, you know, you need to look after the weakest members of society.
Oh man, I live in Melbourne, Australia and riding a bicycle here is terrible. The bike lanes are squeezed between parked cars and driving cars, with the risk of getting doored being really high (should be zero). And if you do get doored, the attitude of the person trying to kill you thinks that it is the cyclists fault.
I know, happen to live in Groningen, and love cycling as a solution. However, there are some situations where I still like a car. Cycling in winter isn't great, cycling with baggage isn't great either, and cycling in the rain gets wet.
Cycling is great, I hope to get along in life without a car, but cars are still great to have as an option.
Trust me, we know. Your reliance on bikes is a huge inspiration and talking point for US urbanists.
Unfortunately there are features of most US cities (lack of public interest, obesity, disability, low density, long commutes, weather) that block our adoption from approaching yours.
Rails definitely do work well for the last mile in very developed cities (i.e. London), but it's probably an unsustainable infrastructure cost for most places. That being said, it's easy to just change where that last mile is in the future (i.e. mixed zoning, flexible working environments, increasing mega-cities etc...).
I don't think "very developed" and "unsustainable infrastructure" are mutually exclusive. I would argue the manner in which a city developed is far more important than the "degree" of development. Phoenix is a young, developed city but the efficacy of public transportation here is very different than London.
It seems like a much better plan is to separate drivers from other people more rigorously, and maybe mandate people drive the last-mile themselves (with AI help, obviously).