I find it's similar to the XYZ stereotype, where people get annoyed because you're excited and interested in topic XYZ. Then they use that as an excuse to not like XYZ.
This is a joke but also not. People as a group are the worst.
More likely that it will be trains between cities and AI taxis in cities. Owning a car will make less sense when you can at a moments notice just jump into a AI taxi and trains will be way faster than cars between cities. Within cities I do not see subways making much sense less a few busy routes.
It depends where you live, here in Europe a lot of trips in the cities can also be done by walking, biking or other micromobility options because a lot of the trips are small distance.
It would be possible to slowly restructure the cities in the US to enable it there. It would also make the neighbourhoods much nicer in terms of livelyness and social interactions.
Won’t ever happen that way, unless government sky rocket the cost of ownership. People are selfish and will fight that tooth and nail. Just look at the reaction to the ULEZ, and they are willing to buy the old junk from them.
You are on the right track. Trains go between cities, buses/metros/trams within a city. Cars (AI or not) will still exist, but their use will mostly be for people in rural areas to arrive near the next train station.
Traffic within a city is perfect for public transportation. It is dense enough with sufficient demand. Of course this doesn’t mean that robo taxis will (or should) be completely absent in the city, just that they should be the exception not the rule.
The future is as hazy as literally everything else. Do we have cars where they aren’t needed? Yes Do we have rail systems that are hot garbage? yes Do we have rural area that are sprawling making rail and micro less possible? yes
Will trains and public trans be a staple of the future just like it is today in larger cities? yes.
When I lived in Philly, I took the train everywhere but the grocery store… except when I had leisure time then I took my car… and where I went, and a train or self driving care won’t take me there.
Driverless cars will very much have a future because you can’t build trains everywhere. They won’t be personally owned though, i.e. they’ll be robotaxis. Just imagine cities without parked cars.
You certainly can build trains wherever you want, but it comes at a cost that’s not necessarily worth paying everywhere, as it comes with both short term and maintenance costs. I say this as someone who works in rail and is passionate about it; in some locations there isn’t the demand to run the kind of high frequency service necessary to remove the need for car ownership. You can be better off with a demand responsive bus service, for example, to connect to your long-distance, high speed links.
I agree trains will just be more common for distance. I also agree driverless cars will be more common, but would add I think we’ll see more one person, two person, eight person cars in the city. No point in sending a four person car to take John to see his grandma.
We already have a system where you can request a car to come to your location, take you there and then it goes off and drives around doing the same thing for other people. I don’t know why it being autonomous means that people will ditch their private cars for it.
I agree. There just won’t be trains running for a very long time if ever again, is all. Maybe a couple centuries minimum while humanity recovers from whatever toppled it.
By the time those thing will have taken over, something else will be in their place. For certain values of ‘trains’, ‘urban’ and ‘micro mobility’, your claim will likely be true, but ithat is too vague to talk someone out of if that’s simply your stance.
I hate cities because of motor vehicles and all the space that is reserved for them. If all motor traffic was moved to underground, that would make the city pleasant to exist in. I would be happy if every car space was converted to greenery.
That’s my dream too, and why I’m actually sort of onboard with Musk’s vision for car metros. The issue is that I’m 100% sure they’d also want to expand surface level car infrastructure to facilitate that network.
My centrist compromise that I hope will take off in European cities over the next decade is that most two lane city streets will become one lane one way systems with protected bike lanes, pavements and trees taking the space that’s been freed up.
To be fair, that’s a stupid, pointless hard mode, regardless of having a car or not. If your city is designed correctly, it more like taking a day worth of groceries 200m.
Economies of scale and specialization of shops mean that even if you get your noodles and tomatoes from the corner store each afternoon, you’re still going to want to go someplace else to stock up on 40lb sacks of basmati and chickpeas. And maybe you want to visit the farmer’s market on the weekend, which cannot be on everyone’s streetcorner.
I use paniers, and every 2-3 years I get my bike trailer out of the closet. I can carry 90 litres in my panniers and not even notice they’re there.
I walk past it on my afternoon walk, get my groceries for the day and that is it. Why would I bother storing that much crap? This way I get fresh food basically every day.
Most trips I don’t use the cart, I also just do short walks on a semi daily basis for most things. I was just pointing out it’s still possible to do big trips without a car. I mainly cart for the bulky/heavy items. Bags of rice, paper towels, cat litter, etc. Or if I’m doing a bigger trip to a specialty market across town like an Asian grocer.
fuckcars
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.