The greatest enemy of good driving conditions is and always will be other drivers. The people who really care about being able to drive should be enthusiastically supporting getting others off the roads because congestion is inevitable.
Especially since it costs less total taxpayer money that way (the classic is Houston vs NYC vs Amsterdam, which spend something like 20%, 10%, and 4% of their municipal budgets on transportation respectively). You’re less likely to have congestion AND potholes in a city with trams and bike routes.
I love cars, love driving, and I work in self-driving cars because I’m convinced the only people doing it should be the people who see it as a hobby, just like riding horses. You have so many people on the roads who hate it, and drive horribly because they don’t care and it’s an absolute pain for them. Why should those people drive, other than the fact that we don’t have the technology yet to allow them not to?
(Even better, infrastructure to support them not to need cars at all, but that’s a different topic. And before we get the “trains are the solution to every problem” crew, I think self driving shuttles are a cool way to diminish vehicles vs cars, that can cover at the same cost more routes than buses, achieve a higher occupancy rate, and would need next to no infrastructure changes.)
Light rail intercity transportation is a good option, but it only makes sense on well-traveled routes. And while it is true that the trains induce significant demand – that is, the route they are on will BECOME well-traveled because the train access is so valuable that people want to be near it – this is only solving a few very narrow commute problems.
Trains ARE the solution to major commuter congestion, though, and for many well-developed metros are probably the only path to reducing congestion since you cannot just continue to add more roads.
Your autonomous shuttle idea might make sense for less-traveled routes, but pavement is incredibly expensive to maintain compared to rail and vehicles that have to carry around their power source around are seriously inefficient compared to a pantograph, not to even get in to rolling resistance. Busses are useful as a start, but in response to growth they should continue evolving sensibly – car to bus to trolly bus to tram to fully-separated light rail is a logical progression as a city grows, but a city that knows it is growing fast is often wise to skip steps to save longterm cost.
The actual full solution to the issue of cars is the same one it has been for all 10,000 years of the human urban experiment (less the last 60ish) – build towns that are primarily navigable on your own power. Don’t create robust social policies that cut off infill and multifamily residence. Don’t push all business and work sites to some far-flung corner compared to where people life. Don’t subsidize a fake-rural lifestyle in islands that cannot sustain themselves at the expense of the poor people living in old-development neighborhoods. Don’t build more roads that you can afford to maintain and don’t permit road geometries you know are going to kill people – zero routine deaths is the only acceptable number.
A city you can get around under your own power is less expensive to maintain and more pleasant to live in for most people.
Not to even get into the relative safety (or lack thereof for cars & roads).
The greatest enemy of good driving conditions is and always will be other drivers. The people who really care about being able to drive should be enthusiastically supporting getting others off the roads because congestion is inevitable.
Especially since it costs less total taxpayer money that way (the classic is Houston vs NYC vs Amsterdam, which spend something like 20%, 10%, and 4% of their municipal budgets on transportation respectively). You’re less likely to have congestion AND potholes in a city with trams and bike routes.
I love cars, love driving, and I work in self-driving cars because I’m convinced the only people doing it should be the people who see it as a hobby, just like riding horses. You have so many people on the roads who hate it, and drive horribly because they don’t care and it’s an absolute pain for them. Why should those people drive, other than the fact that we don’t have the technology yet to allow them not to?
(Even better, infrastructure to support them not to need cars at all, but that’s a different topic. And before we get the “trains are the solution to every problem” crew, I think self driving shuttles are a cool way to diminish vehicles vs cars, that can cover at the same cost more routes than buses, achieve a higher occupancy rate, and would need next to no infrastructure changes.)
Trains are not the solution to every problem.
Light rail intercity transportation is a good option, but it only makes sense on well-traveled routes. And while it is true that the trains induce significant demand – that is, the route they are on will BECOME well-traveled because the train access is so valuable that people want to be near it – this is only solving a few very narrow commute problems.
Trains ARE the solution to major commuter congestion, though, and for many well-developed metros are probably the only path to reducing congestion since you cannot just continue to add more roads.
Your autonomous shuttle idea might make sense for less-traveled routes, but pavement is incredibly expensive to maintain compared to rail and vehicles that have to carry around their power source around are seriously inefficient compared to a pantograph, not to even get in to rolling resistance. Busses are useful as a start, but in response to growth they should continue evolving sensibly – car to bus to trolly bus to tram to fully-separated light rail is a logical progression as a city grows, but a city that knows it is growing fast is often wise to skip steps to save longterm cost.
The actual full solution to the issue of cars is the same one it has been for all 10,000 years of the human urban experiment (less the last 60ish) – build towns that are primarily navigable on your own power. Don’t create robust social policies that cut off infill and multifamily residence. Don’t push all business and work sites to some far-flung corner compared to where people life. Don’t subsidize a fake-rural lifestyle in islands that cannot sustain themselves at the expense of the poor people living in old-development neighborhoods. Don’t build more roads that you can afford to maintain and don’t permit road geometries you know are going to kill people – zero routine deaths is the only acceptable number.
A city you can get around under your own power is less expensive to maintain and more pleasant to live in for most people.
Not to even get into the relative safety (or lack thereof for cars & roads).