this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024
797 points (95.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

9580 readers
348 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Highway spending increased by 90% in 2021. This is one of many reasons why car traffic is growing faster than population growth.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] abfarid@startrek.website 16 points 2 months ago (49 children)

While I'm a strong proponent of reducing and possibly eliminating car use, this image is disingenuous. They neatly packed 69 (nice) people into a medium bus, sure. But when showing cars, it's almost 1 persons per car (I counted 15 cars in a row and there are 4 rows, so 60 cars). You can definitely use cars more efficiently than that.

Assuming that actually autonomous self-driving cars exist, they could be extremely efficient. Especially if you treat them like ride sharing taxis. In other words, a lot of people could share the same car and that would reduce the amount of owned cars. They also never waste space being parked. So I can see how when we make a real self-driving car, it can potentially reduce traffic. Especially for all those cases where public transportation doesn't work.

And what the heck is a "connected car"?

[–] r_se_random@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I'd argue against that.

The concept of robot taxi sounds nice, but it devolves into an unsustainable mess. Ride sharing isn't simple, especially when we talk about uncertain way points. Meaningfully matching cases where people can share a robot car with completely random drop off is a logistical nightmare. I used to work at a Ride hailing company as an analyst, and people being unhappy with the duration of the shared ride was the biggest issue for that category (removing for generic cases like payment issues).

Additionally, I'm sure it's going to be a safety factor. I'm unlikely to get into a car with a random stranger when there's literally no one else in the car. Miss me with trusting some corporate with safety in such cases.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I’ve done ride shares a few times with Uber and it went pretty well. Basically it only worked from downtown to the airport, as the only scenarios with similar routes. Maybe a sporting or music event would be the same, I don’t know

[–] r_se_random@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what you mean here by Downtown.

But again, if all you're looking for is a good transport system from one high population density area (airports almost always are) to another high population density area, you'll be better served by having a reliable and decently fast metro train or the likes, than a cab, as long as people don't mind walking for 5-10 minutes from their closest stop. If that distance is higher, by all means taxis are amazing for last mile connectivity. But expecting cars to solve public transport at large has always looked like a losing battle to me.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Boston. I’ve gotten shared rides between downtown Boston and the airport but that’s the only scenario where I’ve been able to

It’s also a bit of a cautionary tale on transit, because Boston managed to screw that up with too many connections making it take too long.

  • Subway. But only the blue line, no connection to red line, and you need to transfer to a bus.
  • silver line. Connects to red line only. Glorified bus, drives in regular traffic.
  • park and ride - no overnight parking.
  • AirPort Express bus. Only serves outer burbs

If I want to goto the airport from my home in the inner ‘burbs:

  • commuter train is up to 2 hours apart, limited hours. Can head into town, walk a block or two to the blue line, wait as long as 20 minutes, take that to the airport. Wait up to 5 minutes for a shuttle, take that to the terminal. Not practical.
  • drive to red line. No overnight parking. Wait up to 20 minutes for subway, take it to silver line. Wait up to 20 minutes. Get stuck in traffic in the tunnels. Not practical.

I have lots of great transit options but none that connect smoothly and frequently enough to actually use. This is better when living in the city but still all the connections and delays turn what should be a great transit experience into an impractical one. I’m going to end up driving to the airport every time (up to three day trip or Uber for longer)

[–] r_se_random@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

Never been to US, so I won't comment on the specific infra.

However, I have lived in multiple cities, and have seen multiple cities build their metro networks from scratch in 20 years. And they've been absolutely over and beyond what could've been achieved by any improvement in car infrastructure, apart from demolishing entire houses and shops to expand the roads on both sides.

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Thank you, that is a very interesting insight. But besides sharing cars in parallel (multiple passengers at once) there can also be sequential sharing, which is, I understand, a regular taxi without a driver. But I think that high availability of cars like that, which are cheap, would still reduce the amount of car owners, and consequently increase public transportation utilization.

[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why do something that complicated when bus and tram lines are way more efficient? Cities need to take the money they apend on subsidizing car ownership and invest it into mass transit.

[–] abfarid@startrek.website -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Because trams and busses can't fulfill every need. Certain point to point transportation options still need to exist, we just need to make them as efficient as possible.

And as I mentioned in another comment, ~~turns out busses aren't really as efficient as I thought they were. Fully packed small cars are way more efficient~~.

Edit: Changed my mind. See previous comment.

[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Most cars only ever have 1 person in them, 2 occasionally, and rarely ever more than that inlesst it's a damily trip somewhere. A bus with 5 passengers is taking up less space than 5 cars of any size. Even in mass transit Meccas like The Netherlands obviously still have private cars that people use. But designing transport infrastructure around more efficient methods allows for use cases where a personal car iis necessary fleeting. Obviously moving trucks and delivery vans can't be replaced by a tram. But a well designed city wouldn't require me to drive my car just to pick up eggs and a loaf of bread, or to get a beer at a local bar, or go to a baseball game.

[–] r_se_random@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

Sequential sharing isn't sharing. That's how any cab operators functions.

The problems you're mentioning aren't problems with human drivers, but the problems with perfect allocation. Robo taxis won't solve them.

load more comments (46 replies)