Most successful transit systems are a short couple minutes walk to the train station, bus stop or streetcar. No further than walking from the parking lot to your destination in a lot of cases.
Cars are really only 'door to door' in the suburbs when commuting between two homes with driveways. Otherwise they're no different than a decent transit system.
I do find it interesting how people automatically assume all driving is door-to-door, forget about parking lots, forget about finding street parking, etc. and immediately talk about how transit can't work based on the same issue.
> Cars are really only 'door to door' in the suburbs when commuting between two homes with driveways
American suburbs are incompatible with trains. In cities, Uber is door to door.
I get the broader point. But at this crossroad, re-designing our cities for trains is a moot point. We could have, we should have, but we didn’t. Similar to African and Southeast Asian countries leapfrogging copper for mobile and fibre, electric self-driving point-to-point (perhaps with sub regional rail and more-efficient air) looks like the clear future for America, a rich and spread-out country.
> I get the broader point. But at this crossroad, re-designing our cities for trains is a moot point.
Why not? Cities were redesigned from 1940s-60s to be compatible with cars. It took an enormous amount of capital, but it was done because of the promise of a new technology.
Most of the infrastructure in suburbs currently under construction will be tear-downs in 30 years. The only redesign that needs to happen is letting current developments age out, removing restrictions on denser and multi-use architecture closer to the city center, and pricing utilities by effective utilization (suburbs use more utilities but don't pay more for them). Denser architecture and urbanization will naturally re-emerge because it is more economically competitive.
Mass transit can then be added in piecemeal, first with busses, then light rail and street cars, then underground trains.
> Why not? Cities were redesigned from 1940s-60s to be compatible with cars. It took an enormous amount of capital, but it was done because of the promise of a new technology.
I'm not arguing against redesign per se. Just the timing. We don't know what self-driving cars will mean for urban transport, but we know it's going to be impactful. Building out rail infrastructure now is like building the best piston engine on the eve of the dawn of the jet age. It's probably still very relevant. But we don't know in what form.
I doubt it will be mass transit a la Europe. But I also don't think we'll be in an LA universe. Cars that can seamlessly deliver people to train stations is an option. But at that point, why not directly to their train car? These seem like simple modifications, but they impact whether you build out lines and arteries with waypoints in the suburbs.
> We don't know what self-driving cars will mean for urban transport, but we know it's going to be impactful.
At this point, given the challenges that we can see in front of us, we do not know that self-driving cars will ever be genuinely practical. Not in the "can drive anywhere, under any conditions, with no more danger than humans" sense.
> the "can drive anywhere, under any conditions, with no more danger than humans" sense
That’s fine. I’m limiting scope to urban and suburban environments where they interface with other modes as a universal last mile. That definitely looks proximate, given there are working examples already deployed, albeit unsustainably.
> American suburbs are incompatible with trains. In cities, Uber is door to door.
Absolutely, in part because they don't have trains. You have to put the trains in first, and the density will follow. However, I actually picked my wording pretty carefully in the original post. Most people live in cities, and the fraction that lives in urban areas continues to grow. I don't think trains solve all problems but I reiterate they solve the problems of most people.
That's before we even get to the problem of Uber and Lyft being utterly unsustainable businesses.
> I get the broader point. But at this crossroad, re-designing our cities for trains is a moot point. We could have, we should have, but we didn’t.
It's not nearly as bad as you think. You drop the transit down, and the buildings around will redevelop absent punitive zoning. No better time to start than today!
> Most people live in cities, and the fraction that lives in urban areas continues to grow
Given a choice, many are choosing point-to-point. Even where there is mass transit, American cities aren’t as dense as European and Asian centres. (Particularly post Covid.) The solution will be hybrid. Planners who pivot hard for trains make the same mistake as those who went hard for cars in the 50s.
> before we even get to the problem of Uber and Lyft being utterly unsustainable businesses
In suburbs, yes. Cities have had cabs for ages.
> drop the transit down, and the buildings around will redevelop absent punitive zoning. No better time to start than today
Now isn’t good. We’re on the precipice of a regime change. Self-driving cars port economies of scale from Phoenix to New York and vice versa. That isn’t true of trains given the amount of local planning required*. We should deploy artery routes. But the end game will be point to point, aided with trains for efficiency. There are many ways that could develop; it seems silly to bet on the legacy model this late in the game.
* Yes, Wayne must tune. But that team can move on once done. We don’t ship Chicago’s urban planners to Seattle; there is a strong element of re-learning everything every time with trains.
> Now isn’t good. We’re on the precipice of a regime change. Self-driving cars port economies of scale from Phoenix to New York and vice versa. That isn’t true of trains given the amount of local planning required*. We should deploy artery routes. But the end game will be point to point, aided with trains for efficiency. There are many ways that could develop; it seems silly to bet on the legacy model this late in the game.
Cars are an awful model because they spend 95% of their time idle. They do that because most people only want to commute to work and from work. Which means you need to have enough capacity on the road for 1.5-pax average vehicles for everyone. That's why adding one more lane never solves anything. They're fundamentally a choice which does not scale no matter how many more lanes you add. No matter how much automation you add. And if you choose to play this game you just induce more demand.
They're also a regressive tax on the poor since you're shouldering the average person with hundreds to thousands of dollars in car payments, maintenance, registration, licensing, insurance, etc. Plus the socialized cost of 'free parking'.
Cars are a bad model, period.
> In suburbs, yes. Cities have had cabs for ages.
Well sure, but that's because they pool their leases and insurance, which isn't something you can do in a gig economy. Which means uber and Lyft have fundamentally worse unit economics than cabs. So you should assume you'll in the fullness of time pay at least as much as cabs cost.
> Cars are an awful model because they spend 95% of their time idle
Private cars, sure. I doubt a New York taxi gets that down time.
> uber and Lyft have fundamentally worse unit economics than cabs. So you should assume you'll in the fullness of time pay at least as much as cabs cost
But higher utilization. Uber is profitable in New York. I think Uber is actually more expensive than a yellow, now, because the TLC hasn't been great about inflation adjusting rates. But it's more convenient, more reliable, and so, again, utilized more. (Wayne was like $5 per ride in Phoenix.)
> Now is the best time since yesterday
You're purposely ignoring the point. If you're getting all the requirements tomorrow, tonight isn't a smart time to build.
> Of all people who commute to work in New York City, 39% use the subway, 23% drive alone, 11% take the bus, 9% walk to work, 7% travel by commuter rail, 4% carpool, 1.6% use a taxi, 1.1% ride their bicycle to work, and 0.4% travel by ferry.
> Uber is profitable in New York.
And if that's all it took to be Uber they'd be in great shape but again, most people in New York take the metro. And Uber's business model relies on people taking Uber outside of Manhattan.
> You're purposely ignoring the point. If you're getting all the requirements tomorrow, tonight isn't a smart time to build.
This doesn't make sense. I'm telling you if you build rail density will come. Like it always has. So if you want a chicken, you better get started on the egg.
I assume this is your source [1]. It's from 2017, and only measures commutes. As of February, total subway ridership was down a quarter to a third; busses have stabilized at -35% [2]. Notable absentee: Manhattan, the densest of the lot, where we're stubbornly below -50%.
I'm not arguing against trains. Just against deploying new trains at the precipice of a game changer.
> if you build rail density will come. Like it always has
You're quoting sources from before remote work. (I'm ignoring the increasing automation, particularly in Manhattan.) And, again, before we know how self-driving cars will change transportation.
