trains rule
All I know is that the tunnel snakes rule. I don’t know whether a train is technically a tunnel snake or not.
I mean… I’d totally rock a personal mini train that left when I wanted and rode on a track.
That basically how trains work in Copenhagen. They use small, automated trains that come every couple of minutes. You just wander to the station and get on, no planning or anything.
And also has a station at my house.
Nah, that would make it hella dangerous to just be a person existing in that space. Much safer to use trains to get to a city and then travel in the city by personal conveyance, like a bike or something. Imagine how awful life would be if we gave all that space to train tracks just for individual use. It would be an isolated, lonely nightmare. Not to mention super expensive too. Train engines, no matter how small, are not cheap to own or operate.
I’m going to want something with a roof, windows, and climate control, though – for when the weather is bad.
I bicycle plenty, but there are definitely times when I’d rather not and it’s miserable.
Tracks
They just keep reinventing trains except shittier.
What if we made the train wide and flat, gave it armor plating, bolted a pair of claws on the front, and let it run sideways?
Traininisation
Boxcarcinization.
Crustation
why would an individual car “train” that can go anywhere (eg. train tracks on all roads for self driving cars) be shitter than a train that has limited availability and is extremely restrictive in where it can go?
Because you have to pay a good chunk of a year’s salary for one, store it around your house somewhere, and then when you finally do get to use it, there are a million other people with the same idea and you have to compete just for space in which to use it.
And that’s before you get to all the maintenance the government has to spend on the paths (and make you pay tax for all that). Oh, and it’s incredibly dangerous, so dangerous that it’s one of the leading causes of death in the US.
We are talking about an equivalent ‘pod/train car’, not a car but I’ll bite anyway
Have you ever been on a train? It sucks, a bus 10000% more, buses fuckin suck so much, I’m sorry for you to hear this in the echo chamber which features ‘fuck cars’.
Like I said, trains and buses have 2 big negatives:
limited availability and is extremely restrictive in where it can go
Trains especially so, my local train would be a 20-30 minute walk away and it goes far south and to the city, if i don’t want to go to either of those I’m in for a 5 hour marathon of a trip at best
But we should invest more in trains you might be saying, and again the question goes back to, why would a train be better than a pod/car that can roll around on train tracks
This whole thread took the original meaning and warped it into a circle jerk about trains which is not what the OP was saying
Sure badly built or unprioritized public transit infrastructure might suck, but busses and trains sure are amazing when prioritised, built correctly.
Many European cities combine well functioning train, bus and cycle infrastructure, which together makes it possible to go anywhere at any time for cheap.
I think it really just comes down to prioritizing to develop the infrastructure (costs money and requires political will to move away from car based infrastructure).
Also I don’t think a pod system would solve any of the problems of either cars or trains/busses and would be much more expensive…
can you name all these European cities combining well functioning train, bus and cycle infrastructure outside of the netherlands? (where the average person/household does not have a car as they don’t need it)
Public transportation seemed to work well in Brussels, Paris, Prague, Copenhagen, and even Edinburgh. Just thinking of the last few cities I was in outside of the Netherlands (leaving out the USA, which is obviously a nightmare for transportation of all kinds). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Buses are the worst (actually, pneumatic tyred ‘trams’ are the worst)
Trains are great though.
yeah tbh i was being a bit hyperbolic, i don’t mind my train trip to work despite it being slow af
but it would take an insane public transport network to service south east queensland, until we find an infinite money glitch it’s only going to be used for a minimum viable amount of very popular trips, eg between brisbane and the gold coast and soon the sunshine coast
but for example if you want to go to crows nest from brisbane there will never be a train that goes that way because of low numbers
It’s always trains
it’s ~pods~. completely different.
Yes, trains have real throughput.
“Trains, but without the tracks.”
Trains for long haul + autotaxis (or air taxis) for short, low speed rides actually sounds pretty dope.
The only way to solve the self driving cat issue is to ban all human drivers from the road.
So, if some techbro wants self driving cars, just give everybody one. All electric of course.
The only way to solve the self driving cat issue is to ban all human drivers from the road.
…and cyclists, and pedestrians, and farm tractors, and horses, and wagons, and stray pets, and wildlife, and…
Cyclist belong on their bicycle lanes , and those lanes belong besides every road.
Pedestrians belong on walkways, along every road
What is about stray pets and railroads? Horses , dogs, cats?
If we are talking about something so unrealistic and futuristic like autonomous vehicles lvl 5+. We may as well assume that we fixed everything else at that point of time.
Or, we just can take this as what it is. A sarcastic joke
Cyclists and pedestrians shouldn’t be on the road.
Unless you’re in the US (my condolences) you have a footpath/sidewalk/pavement for walking.
Bikes should (but rarely do) have their own physically seperated infrastructure, so they’re not getting hit by cars/busses/trucks/etc and not hitting pedestrians.
Giving everybody a self-driving car completely defeats the purpose. Human-driven cars spend about 23 hours of each day just sitting around. A car that can drive itself doesn’t need to spend any time being parked - it can provide another ride! Liberally assuming a self-driving car would need to spend a full half of its time (12 hours/day) charging or being serviced, that would still mean that replacing all cars with autonomous vehicles could reduce traffic volume by a theoretical limit of 12× (12 hours/day/vehicle vs. 1 hour/day/vehicle).
Giving everybody a self-driving car completely defeats the purpose.
Not really, battery-electric cars can double as your household battery bank.
It seems a lot cheaper to buy a battery bank than to spend a sizeable fraction of a million dollars for the rest of the AV and the operational costs.
Is that realistic, though? A car is already a status toy, what’s to stop conspicuous consumption in the form of buying one’s own self-driving car? Or, say, moving to a cheaper house further from the city, because commute time can now be used as work time? Shared cars won’t work in that scenario.
Also, rush hour is still a thing. There have to be enough UAVs to handle peak demand, and then most of them will be parked somewhere, idle most of the time. Or running errands. Traffic congestion is bad enough now, with average vehicle occupancy of 1.2 people; it’ll be apocalyptic when that number drops below one.
Also, in cities with sky-high housing costs, i guarantee that people will live in self-driving RVs, because road space is “free.”
In short, the only way to realize the benefits of the shared UAV future is to ban private car ownership, and cap the number of UAVs in a city. That sounds a lot like a train, except trains’ enormous capacity offers better service.
I doubt that we’ll be seeing UAVs for personal transport anytime soon. Terrestrial vehicles are significantly easier to manage.
The main thing that will prevent people from purchasing their own AVs will be availability. Waymo and Zoox, for example, are running services, not selling their multi-hundred-thousand-dollar vehicles to the general public. (I’m not bothering to address Tesla as their autonomy stack is an industry joke.)
Elimination of personal vehicles would make public transit more attractive; with the previously foregone conclusion that one must own a vehicle gone, the choice is between a few dollars for transit, or several times more than that for a private vehicle. How many people currently choose to take an Uber or Lyft to and from work?
Also, trains don’t have curbside service.
UAV meaning Unmanned Autonomous Vehicle. (In contrast to rideshare services, like Uber. When they were heavily subsidized, it must be noted, they increased traffic congestion.) Availability of them will increase. The reason that we have an auto-dominated landscape today is that car makers wanted to sell more cars. There’s approximately 0% chance that car makers today will be satisfied selling a limited number of vehicles for ride services, when they could sell vastly more cars to individuals.
UAV already stands for “unmanned aerial vehicle.” Besides, using both “unmanned” and “autonomous” is redundant. Anyway, the standard abbreviation for autonomous vehicles is AV.
Buggy whip salesmen gonna have to deal with it.
Why would it reduce traffic volume? The cars that are on the road are the ones that are currently in their hour of driving that day, it would more reduce the size of parking lots and parking space allocation, or at least move it to charging hubs away from where people congregate.
Elimination of personal vehicles would make public transit more attractive; with the previously foregone conclusion that one must own a vehicle gone, the choice is between a few dollars for transit, or several times more than that for a private vehicle. How many people currently choose to take an Uber or Lyft to and from work?
Yeah it would be better still if we we had actual improved public transport systems for carry more people at once rather than automated personal vehicles, even if those automated personal vehicles are shared like taxis. The cost of automation and requirement for removing all other vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists and animals from the roads is immediately removed and the benefits obtained by reducing traffic is immediately realised just by using human driven buses and trains.
Well, one of them is happening faster than the other, so let’s not perfect be the enemy of good.
it would more reduce the size of parking lots and parking space allocation
Which would in turn affect city design, letting buildings be placed closer together, making it so you don’t have to drive as far, which would then reduce traffic.
I think the reduction would be slight versus the reduction realised by improving the quality of existing human operated public transport like buses and trains. A mass transit system relying on individual automated cars is a tech bro brain fart.
Get rid of privately owned cars and you might be on to something. If the state owned a fleet of self driving cars you could rent at the car library, that would probably be better than everyone having their own car they park somewhere most of the time.
Building walkable living spaces with mass transit would be better for more people environmentally, economically, health-wise, socially…
If the state owned a fleet of self driving cars you could rent at the car library
Until Trump or equivalent decides you’re not allowed to leave the city because you posted some nasty things about him.
Forcing non-private ownership means everyone is at the mercy of the state allowing them to borrow transport. How long before the Gays aren’t allowed to drive? Women can’t drive? That’s the future your espousing.
Well, nobody’s gonna be able to afford an actual working autonomous vehicle, and it won’t make sense either economically or operationally to privately own one even if they could.
