They promised us...

[John Picard]

The robot cars are coming. Give it another 30 years or so, but it's coming.

I agree with this, however the same people we don't want in flying cars over our heads -those that can't drive- are most probably the same ones that will insist on controlling their own vehicles, those that don't believe a robot car can drive safer than they can

What I hate is that if the technology to make robot cars is going to be developed, then why have them? It would be cheaper in the long run if countries like the US would move toward high speed and light rail. Maintaining a public transit network would be cheaper and easier than maintaining roads.

 

[Sakrysta]

I agree that we need a more extensive, reliable, and safe public transit system. Riding the bus in my town is an adventure in personal space violation. I had a roommate this last semester who used the city bus to get to campus because with her student ID it was free. She said she was never truly afraid for her safety, but more than once she had creepy people showing her more interest than she was comfortable with.

That in itself I could deal with. But our bus system doesn't go everywhere I want to go. When I first started working in the building I work in now, I looked into riding the bus to work. But because our building is just the other side of the county line, there is no bus stop remotely nearby.

 

[trekkiedane]

What I hate is that if the technology to make robot cars is going to be developed, then why have them? It would be cheaper in the long run if countries like the US would move toward high speed and light rail. Maintaining a public transit network would be cheaper and easier than maintaining roads.

Yes, indeed! - but can you see a possible future where US citizens would give up their 'freedom' to drive a car - Even if it's for a safer, more economic, environmentally sensible, stress relieving and possibly even faster and cheaper public transportation? -I fail to see that. (sure, I'm an outside observer, but I seriously doubt very many people in the US would do this!)

 

[John Picard]

What I hate is that if the technology to make robot cars is going to be developed, then why have them? It would be cheaper in the long run if countries like the US would move toward high speed and light rail. Maintaining a public transit network would be cheaper and easier than maintaining roads.

Yes, indeed! - but can you see a possible future where US citizens would give up their 'freedom' to drive a car - Even if it's for a safer, more economic, environmentally sensible, stress relieving and possibly even faster and cheaper public transportation? -I fail to see that. (sure, I'm an outside observer, but I seriously doubt very many people in the US would do this!)

Please -- don't remind me of US citizens and their so-called "need" for freedom. It's funny (as in interesting) that I've been encountering more people my age (late-30's/early 40's) who would LOVE more and better public transit in the US. I'm also astonished by the number of people my age who, like myself, are thinking of expatriating at retirement.

 

[Deckerd]

Expatriating? sounds painful and a bit messy.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Expatriating? sounds painful and a bit messy.

I'm sure the taxation side of it is.

 

[B.J.]

What I hate is that if the technology to make robot cars is going to be developed, then why have them? It would be cheaper in the long run if countries like the US would move toward high speed and light rail. Maintaining a public transit network would be cheaper and easier than maintaining roads.

Yes, indeed! - but can you see a possible future where US citizens would give up their 'freedom' to drive a car - Even if it's for a safer, more economic, environmentally sensible, stress relieving and possibly even faster and cheaper public transportation? -I fail to see that. (sure, I'm an outside observer, but I seriously doubt very many people in the US would do this!)

Part of the problem is the vast majority of this country is so s-p-r-e-a-d - o-u-t that public transportation is just not economically feasible.

 

[John Picard]

What I hate is that if the technology to make robot cars is going to be developed, then why have them? It would be cheaper in the long run if countries like the US would move toward high speed and light rail. Maintaining a public transit network would be cheaper and easier than maintaining roads.

Yes, indeed! - but can you see a possible future where US citizens would give up their 'freedom' to drive a car - Even if it's for a safer, more economic, environmentally sensible, stress relieving and possibly even faster and cheaper public transportation? -I fail to see that. (sure, I'm an outside observer, but I seriously doubt very many people in the US would do this!)

Part of the problem is the vast majority of this country is so s-p-r-e-a-d - o-u-t that public transportation is just not economically feasible.

Bull. This is a myth perpetuated by those who cling to their cars, and the ignorant. Rail service was prevalent in this country up until post-World War 2, and from what I can tell, the country didn't get any larger after WWII. Detroit was designed around the automobile and is now RAZING over 20 square miles of abandoned cityscape, thereby shrinking. The city leaders are now reviewing plans for a smarter and better laid out city. City planning in the US has been very poor for the last 60+ years, and hopefully we are now realizing what a folly the automobile truly has been for us -- and this is coming from someone who has been a complete gearhead for most of his life.

 

[trekkiedane]

Please -- don't remind me of US citizens and their so-called "need" for freedom. It's funny (as in interesting) that I've been encountering more people my age (late-30's/early 40's) who would LOVE more and better public transit in the US. I'm also astonished by the number of people my age who, like myself, are thinking of expatriating at retirement.

I suppose Florida isn't the retirement paradise it has been for the past couple of generations

Anyway, it is a serious concern; motorists all over the world have the same love of their perceived independence -or 'freedom'- once they sit behind the wheel of their cars. A 'robot car' would allow people to drive for themselves -or choose a different route set up for automatic vehicles and arrive at their destination free of stress (rage?-!)

Besides, I would theorize that the more urbane a (however geographically localized) population is the less the resistance of (indeed, it needs to be good!) public transportation would be.
Please get there fast -tendencies of this sort take some time to get here, and I'd love this to happen before we have discarded the remains of our once quite good public systems in favour of more private cars.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

What I hate is that if the technology to make robot cars is going to be developed, then why have them? It would be cheaper in the long run if countries like the US would move toward high speed and light rail. Maintaining a public transit network would be cheaper and easier than maintaining roads.

This.

Yes, indeed! - but can you see a possible future where US citizens would give up their 'freedom' to drive a car

They will if they have to.

 

[scotpens]

Why put the word “freedom” in ironic quotation marks? Owning a car IS freedom: the freedom to go where you want, when you want, without depending on a bus or train schedule. And the freedom to fart in your own car.

A 'robot car' would allow people to drive for themselves -or choose a different route set up for automatic vehicles and arrive at their destination free of stress (rage?-!)

That would be the ideal solution -- the best of both worlds.

Yes, indeed! - but can you see a possible future where US citizens would give up their 'freedom' to drive a car

They will if they have to.

As I posted earlier in another thread: They can have my car when they pry the steering wheel from my cold, dead hands!

 

[John Picard]

Why put the word “freedom” in ironic quotation marks? Owning a car IS freedom: the freedom to go where you want, when you want, without depending on a bus or train schedule. And the freedom to fart in your own car.

Wow, what ignorance Unlike most Americans, I've traveled to many foreign countries where I didn't need a car to get anywhere. I walked, took the bus, and rode the train/subway. The same cannot be said for this country. Yes, you're right. There's nothing like owning a depreciating asset, highway gridlock, real estate lost to parking lots, and annual maintenance (mechanical, tags, insurance, etc) that SCREAM freedom.

 

[greenguy]

Bull. This is a myth perpetuated by those who cling to their cars, and the ignorant. Rail service was prevalent in this country up until post-World War 2, and from what I can tell, the country didn't get any larger after WWII. Detroit was designed around the automobile and is now RAZING over 20 square miles of abandoned cityscape, thereby shrinking. The city leaders are now reviewing plans for a smarter and better laid out city. City planning in the US has been very poor for the last 60+ years, and hopefully we are now realizing what a folly the automobile truly has been for us -- and this is coming from someone who has been a complete gearhead for most of his life.

City planning hasn't existed over the past 60+ years, and I would even go so far as to say that the formal schools of urban planning lost their clout around 1930-1940. And, yes, the automobile was a huge folly because it instituted this device that pollutes, is expensive, is unsustainable, and also has a vague, sociopolitical romance about itself that is still entrenched in Americana today.

The country didn't get any larger after WW2, but metropolitan areas' densities plummeted around this time because the average area of a metro area exploded whereas population and infrastructure (besides the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System) remained stagnant. This was because of the rise of suburbia in the 1950s, which also had a strong sociopolitical notion attached to it: "America" became owning a car, yard, and your own lot in the suburbs, and commuting to work. This is still romantic for many people. Lack of density renders public transit relatively useless even if it were to exist---LA is a good example of this. What an awful city in many senses, but particularly, the urban planning and transit notions of the place.

Around the same time, funding for newer and more updated public transit began stalling in the 1960s as white flight became evident, urban decay increased, prospective efficacy of transit fell because of falling density, and as a result, there was just no one who wanted to fund public transit. Property values in urban areas fell rapidly, making these areas a poor choice for investment and a bad move for politicians as they were becoming more and more populated by minorities and people who couldn't afford their own property in the suburbs. Combine this with the fact that public transit always runs at a loss 100% of the time, and that the federal government (who is in charge of most transit and the funding thereof) is innately biased against cities and in favor of rural areas, it becomes a very sticky political issue that generally no one is in favor of except urban liberals, even up to today.

 

[John Picard]

Bull. This is a myth perpetuated by those who cling to their cars, and the ignorant. Rail service was prevalent in this country up until post-World War 2, and from what I can tell, the country didn't get any larger after WWII. Detroit was designed around the automobile and is now RAZING over 20 square miles of abandoned cityscape, thereby shrinking. The city leaders are now reviewing plans for a smarter and better laid out city. City planning in the US has been very poor for the last 60+ years, and hopefully we are now realizing what a folly the automobile truly has been for us -- and this is coming from someone who has been a complete gearhead for most of his life.

City planning hasn't existed over the past 60+ years, and I would even go so far as to say that the formal schools of urban planning lost their clout around 1930-1940. And, yes, the automobile was a huge folly because it instituted this device that pollutes, is expensive, is unsustainable, and also has a vague, sociopolitical romance about itself that is still entrenched in Americana today.

The country didn't get any larger after WW2, but metropolitan areas' densities plummeted around this time because the average area of a metro area exploded whereas population and infrastructure (besides the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System) remained stagnant. This was because of the rise of suburbia in the 1950s, which also had a strong sociopolitical notion attached to it: "America" became owning a car, yard, and your own lot in the suburbs, and commuting to work. This is still romantic for many people. Lack of density renders public transit relatively useless even if it were to exist---LA is a good example of this. What an awful city in many senses, but particularly, the urban planning and transit notions of the place.

Around the same time, funding for newer and more updated public transit began stalling in the 1960s as white flight became evident, urban decay increased, prospective efficacy of transit fell because of falling density, and as a result, there was just no one who wanted to fund public transit. Property values in urban areas fell rapidly, making these areas a poor choice for investment and a bad move for politicians as they were becoming more and more populated by minorities and people who couldn't afford their own property in the suburbs. Combine this with the fact that public transit always runs at a loss 100% of the time, and that the federal government (who is in charge of most transit and the funding thereof) is innately biased against cities and in favor of rural areas, it becomes a very sticky political issue that generally no one is in favor of except urban liberals, even up to today.

Um no, city planning has been around for a very long time (dating back to Roman times and earlier), and no, public transit has not always run at a loss.

Of course, I am kind of stupid advocating public transit when I think about how it eases congestion, makes life easier for the handicapped and teens, and is much more environmentally friendly than cars. Heck, the lack of needing to walk great distances in everyday life has contributed toward the obesity epidemic in the US.

Yep, public transit sure would be a loss -- perhaps economically in a direct sense; however, socially and in other economic factors, it would not.

 

[Colonel Green]

scotpens is right in that modern American cities are a lot harder to serve with public transit than those of European countries or even those of pre-WW2 America due to the massive increase in urban sprawl. The country may not have grown in size, but the suburbs (and therefore the area that LRT would have to serve) have grown exponentially, at a much higher rate than the population. There were no cities like modern day Atlanta (even adjusted for scale given population growth) in 1930.

That said, just because something is hard doesn't mean it's not worth doing. A major part of any shift towards public transit would have to be putting a halt to urban sprawl. That and heavy tolls on highways. People expect rail and transit to pay their own way, it's about time we asked the same of drivers.

 

[John Picard]

scotpens is right in that modern American cities are a lot harder to serve with public transit than those of European countries or even those of pre-WW2 America due to the massive increase in urban sprawl. The country may not have grown in size, but the suburbs have grown exponentially.

That said, just because something is hard doesn't mean it's not worth doing. A major part of any shift towards public transit would have to be putting a halt to urban sprawl. That and heavy tolls on highways. People expect rail and transit to pay its own way, it's about time we asked the same of drivers.

Fair enough, and I'm in the camp that if the Government said, "OK, all vehicles need to have a GPS so that all drivers are taxed for actual road usage" I'd be all for it. It's been proposed here, and interestingly enough the cries and shrieks of "our freedoms are being lost" emanate loudly. The GPS proposal stems from various factors which include the following: fewer dollars in the road maintenance coffers; more vehicles on the road that get higher mileage; people are driving less; labor and road maintenance costs increasing.

Overall, automobile drivers want (more like demand) a free lunch.

 

[greenguy]

Um no, city planning has been around for a very long timeand no, public transit has not always run at a loss.

Name one public transit system in the United States that has ever consistently been operated at a net profit in the modern era once public funding and subsidies are factored into the equation.

Of course, I am kind of stupid advocating public transit when I think about how it eases congestion, makes life easier for the handicapped and teens, and is much more environmentally friendly than cars. Heck, the lack of needing to walk great distances in everyday life has contributed toward the obesity epidemic in the US.

Yep, public transit sure would be a loss -- perhaps economically in a direct sense; however, socially and in other economic factors, it would not.

For the record, I agree with you. I am 200% in favor of improving urban infrastructure and public transit. I am an urban dweller and I concentrated one of my degrees in urban policy and am now trying to get a job in the field since I enjoy it so much. I mentioned operation costs as they are presented in policy and government, not any externalities which are hard to market vis a vis the direct economic consequences. For example, voters in downstate Illinois (ew) are not conscious or caring about how throwing millions and millions at a city they don't live in has any relevance or importance to them.

The positive externalities you mentioned do outweigh the costs in my mind, but your notion that spreading out has nothing to do with the state of urban infrastructure today is just categorically false, and I was providing socioeconomic and political reasons why infrastructure is not going to improve anytime soon until we change the entire mindset of public transit and what funding it exactly means/does.

 

[John Picard]

^^ Hopefully, rising costs and other factors will cause more municipalities to follow Detroit's lead. I have locked horns with many Conservative acquaintances regarding urban sprawl and how it should be contained and stopped. They all seem to be of the mindset that the US is so big that we (cities/towns) should spread out. European cities are a prime example of how to design smart, hence one of the reasons I someday want to leave.

 

[greenguy]

This is a valid point, John, and it is an interesting and complex issue. In theory, the government should be able to tell people that loose zoning and development has lead to big problems that we pay for every day, but this is just not our sociopolitical tradition, unfortunately. Urban sprawl IS out of control and it costs us so, so much money, both private and public, every day. Pollution is worse and property values become arbitrary affected, and then are often subject to market corrections (read: current housing crisis )

 

[Deckerd]

It's public TRANSPORT. Sheesh.