What's wrong with freeways?

[Slick Vik]

Question for Slick: if cars were automated self-driving, accident-free, all-electric, and recharged from solar power (both on the car and the roof of your garage) - and were also available on demand to those who don't own one by the local transit agency and taxi services - would you still be anti-car/anti-freeway/pro-rail?

Followup questions: what if they ran on clean natural gas? What if they were plug-in hybrids that ran on battery power at first but also normal gasoline for extended range and got 50+ mpg?

Just trying to understand where the line is here on cars are good vs. cars are bad.

How is it possible for the cars to be accident free unless all cars are self driving? Do you see that happening anytime soon?

Also why would the transit agency provide cars that carry at a maximum of 5 people? That goes against the idea of trying to transport the maximum number of people at once.

There is no clean natural gas. Have you watched the documentary gasland?

Plug in hybrids are only as clean as the electricity source. So that varies by state.

[IronTiger]

I would rather be on a train instead of spending energy and time and gas driving, not to mention any time you drive you put yourself at risk of being in an accident.

That's true, cars are more prone to accidents. But not riding a car because of accident potential is like never getting in water for fear of drowning, etc.

 

But that's besides the point, I think people should at least be afforded the option. You and others refuse to want to give us other options of modes of transit in Houston. That's the issue.

 

The city of Houston is confiscating people's bicycles?! Wow, why isn't this on the news? 

 

Seriously, though, light rail is frankly a luxury and only found in major cities. Most of the more established networks have been around for decades. Even then, rail doesn't go every place in town, and before you bring up European trains again, keep in mind that Europe is almost bankrupt.

 

The equivalent of stations for freeways is exits...it's not a mandatory stop and there's no electricity required. 

 

The thing about freeways is I don't think anyone besides a small troupe of roadgeeks really love them...but everyone uses them as they are necessary in larger cities.

[ToryGattis]

How is it possible for the cars to be accident free unless all cars are self driving? Do you see that happening anytime soon?

Also why would the transit agency provide cars that carry at a maximum of 5 people? That goes against the idea of trying to transport the maximum number of people at once.

There is no clean natural gas. Have you watched the documentary gasland?

Plug in hybrids are only as clean as the electricity source. So that varies by state.

 

Well, even if not all of them are self-driving, the self-driving ones will be amazing at defensive driving and collision avoidance (like they won't go thru an intersection if their radar detects a car about to run a red light).  Let's just say the risk rate gets the same or better than walking + transit, which have plenty of their own risks. 

 

It's not about trying to transport the maximum number at once - it's a tradeoff with convenience and trip times.  Otherwise train and buses would be much more infrequent so they ran more full.

 

Now will you answer the question?  Sounds like you're a 'no' if they generate any carbon emissions, so what if it runs purely on renewables? (even in states with a mix, you can buy a wind power plan)

[Ross]

There is no clean natural gas. Have you watched the documentary gasland?

 

 

Complete fiction with no basis in reality

 

[Ross]

I would rather be on a train instead of spending energy and time and gas driving, not to mention any time you drive you put yourself at risk of being in an accident.

But that's besides the point, I think people should at least be afforded the option. You and others refuse to want to give us other options of modes of transit in Houston. That's the issue.

 

I don't want to spend billions here for transit that doesn't work and doesn't go anywhere. Houston is not a rail kind of city. It's not dense enough, and there's no real place to put the rail without disrupting the rest of the traffic.

 

[Slick Vik]

I don't want to spend billions here for transit that doesn't work and doesn't go anywhere. Houston is not a rail kind of city. It's not dense enough, and there's no real place to put the rail without disrupting the rest of the traffic.

Houston was a rail city before it was ever a freeway city. Also many cities with similar density are investing in rail. Finally I wasn't in favor of spending billions on 10 expansion but it was done anyway.

[gmac]

Wake up from your fairytale dreamland and realize that your ship sailed 100 years ago. It's not gonna happen, Vik, no matter how much you wish and hope. Freeways and cars are here to stay, at least until you and I are well deceased, and Houston will continue to make use of them.

[ToryGattis]

Well, even if not all of them are self-driving, the self-driving ones will be amazing at defensive driving and collision avoidance (like they won't go thru an intersection if their radar detects a car about to run a red light).  Let's just say the risk rate gets the same or better than walking + transit, which have plenty of their own risks. 

 

It's not about trying to transport the maximum number at once - it's a tradeoff with convenience and trip times.  Otherwise train and buses would be much more infrequent so they ran more full.

 

Now will you answer the question?  Sounds like you're a 'no' if they generate any carbon emissions, so what if it runs purely on renewables? (even in states with a mix, you can buy a wind power plan)

 

Just checking in again, Slick.  Is there any technological/environmental scenario under which individual vehicles + freeways are good with you?  I'm trying to understand if the root objection is environmental (which could be fixed), or if it's something else?

[Slick Vik]

Just checking in again, Slick. Is there any technological/environmental scenario under which individual vehicles + freeways are good with you? I'm trying to understand if the root objection is environmental (which could be fixed), or if it's something else?

The root objection is auto dependency. I understand freeways are here but if we were a city like New York, Washington DC, Boston, or Chicago where we had a viable alternative than that wouldn't be the case. What if everyone doesn't want to spend thousands, possibly tens of thousands on purchasing a car and then thousands more maintaining it? What about the people that can't do that to begin with? What about the vitality of your city? The one excellent neighborhood in houston is midtown, because it's walkable. We need more like that, and to be able to travel between them in an efficient and attractive way that a world class city is deserving of. The thing is I'm not the only person that thinks like this. Most people my age think the same way. So it's just a matter of time before we make some real changes in this city. Hopefully it's sooner than later. But I won't stop advocating.

[Slick Vik]

Complete fiction with no basis in reality

Have you seen it? Or gasland 2? Fracking has consequences.

[Ross]

Have you seen it? Or gasland 2? Fracking has consequences.

 

Not the consequences described by the charlatan who made the movies.

 

[ToryGattis]

The root objection is auto dependency. I understand freeways are here but if we were a city like New York, Washington DC, Boston, or Chicago where we had a viable alternative than that wouldn't be the case. What if everyone doesn't want to spend thousands, possibly tens of thousands on purchasing a car and then thousands more maintaining it? What about the people that can't do that to begin with? What about the vitality of your city? The one excellent neighborhood in houston is midtown, because it's walkable. We need more like that, and to be able to travel between them in an efficient and attractive way that a world class city is deserving of. The thing is I'm not the only person that thinks like this. Most people my age think the same way. So it's just a matter of time before we make some real changes in this city. Hopefully it's sooner than later. But I won't stop advocating.

 

So it's not the environmental aspect. And I already specified in the scenario that transit agencies would make self-driving shuttle cars available on demand for roughly the same price as a bus ride, so that invalidates the economics argument.  As-is, Houston is pretty much the most vital/vibrant city in the country right now, but that's a side argument.  I understand wanting walkable neighborhoods, but that's not incompatible with my scenario.  You can have perfectly walkable neighborhoods knitted together by a freeway network and using self-driving cars for longer distances (whether owned or transit-provided).  It sounds like your root objection is not cars but a desire for walkable neighborhoods (i.e. new urbanist), so I assume that means you want a powerful top-down planning regime to force such neighborhood development - something I disagree with but understand others have legitimately different opinions.  But you should be agnostic on the longer-distance transportation method used unless there is some other hidden objection I'm missing?  In other words, if Houston developed a vibrant collection of walkable neighborhoods connected by self-driving cars (again whether owned or on-demand provided by transit), that scenario would be just as good as those neighborhoods connected by some rail system. Right?

[Slick Vik]

So it's not the environmental aspect. And I already specified in the scenario that transit agencies would make self-driving shuttle cars available on demand for roughly the same price as a bus ride, so that invalidates the economics argument. As-is, Houston is pretty much the most vital/vibrant city in the country right now, but that's a side argument. I understand wanting walkable neighborhoods, but that's not incompatible with my scenario. You can have perfectly walkable neighborhoods knitted together by a freeway network and using self-driving cars for longer distances (whether owned or transit-provided). It sounds like your root objection is not cars but a desire for walkable neighborhoods (i.e. new urbanist), so I assume that means you want a powerful top-down planning regime to force such neighborhood development - something I disagree with but understand others have legitimately different opinions. But you should be agnostic on the longer-distance transportation method used unless there is some other hidden objection I'm missing? In other words, if Houston developed a vibrant collection of walkable neighborhoods connected by self-driving cars (again whether owned or on-demand provided by transit), that scenario would be just as good as those neighborhoods connected by some rail system. Right?

Again, what sense would it make for a public transit agency to provide self driving cars? That's not mass transit. And what's with obsession with self driving cars overall?

[IronTiger]

So, the reason you're anti freeway is the auto dependency thing, or walkability?

Walkability is mostly about building good sidewalks, decent zoning so you're never too far away from eateries and shops, and street crossing. Complaining how a freeway is an impediment to this somehow is petty.

[ToryGattis]

Again, what sense would it make for a public transit agency to provide self driving cars? That's not mass transit. And what's with obsession with self driving cars overall?

 

Sure it is.  If anybody can dial up an on-demand shared shuttle bus/car, that's mass transit.  METRO already does it right now for the disabled, but it's too expensive to do for everybody.  Self-driving shuttles using optimization algorithms to pick people up and drop them off where they want to go would be the *ultimate* mass transit - people save tons of trip time and the vehicles can run at near capacity almost all the time (vs. trains and buses that run nearly empty and very inefficiently much of the day).

 

Google and the auto makers all admit self-driving vehicles are coming, probably in the 2020s.  The prototypes already work, they just have to get the costs down. That definitely will have a major impact on transportation in the country, including transit.  I'm trying to think this through before we make 30-50+/year capital investments in rail.

 

I'm still having trouble getting to your root objection, and I'm not sure you even know it.  If it's about neighborhood design, make it about neighborhood design, not cars and freeways.  If there's some type of superiority of buses or trains vs. automated vehicles, *please* explain it to me.  In other words, please directly answer the question I ended my last post with: "But you should be agnostic on the longer-distance transportation method used unless there is some other hidden objection I'm missing?  In other words, if Houston developed a vibrant collection of walkable neighborhoods connected by self-driving cars (again whether owned or on-demand provided by transit), that scenario would be just as good as those neighborhoods connected by some rail system. Right?"

[Slick Vik]

Sure it is. If anybody can dial up an on-demand shared shuttle bus/car, that's mass transit. METRO already does it right now for the disabled, but it's too expensive to do for everybody. Self-driving shuttles using optimization algorithms to pick people up and drop them off where they want to go would be the *ultimate* mass transit - people save tons of trip time and the vehicles can run at near capacity almost all the time (vs. trains and buses that run nearly empty and very inefficiently much of the day).

Google and the auto makers all admit self-driving vehicles are coming, probably in the 2020s. The prototypes already work, they just have to get the costs down. That definitely will have a major impact on transportation in the country, including transit. I'm trying to think this through before we make 30-50+/year capital investments in rail.

I'm still having trouble getting to your root objection, and I'm not sure you even know it. If it's about neighborhood design, make it about neighborhood design, not cars and freeways. If there's some type of superiority of buses or trains vs. automated vehicles, *please* explain it to me. In other words, please directly answer the question I ended my last post with: "But you should be agnostic on the longer-distance transportation method used unless there is some other hidden objection I'm missing? In other words, if Houston developed a vibrant collection of walkable neighborhoods connected by self-driving cars (again whether owned or on-demand provided by transit), that scenario would be just as good as those neighborhoods connected by some rail system. Right?"

There is no way metro could afford to buy enough self driving cars for the entire city. And as I said before this just pushes toward auto dependency. Here is some reading material for you

http://www.carfreeinbigd.com/2013/11/driverless-cars-and-technology.html?m=1

[Ross]

Sure it is.  If anybody can dial up an on-demand shared shuttle bus/car, that's mass transit.  METRO already does it right now for the disabled, but it's too expensive to do for everybody.  Self-driving shuttles using optimization algorithms to pick people up and drop them off where they want to go would be the *ultimate* mass transit - people save tons of trip time and the vehicles can run at near capacity almost all the time (vs. trains and buses that run nearly empty and very inefficiently much of the day).

 

 

And the big thing with driverless cars for transit is that they can go places that will never get any rail or bus based transit. Say, from the corner of Jensen and Waco to Tidwell and Wheatley. Or Main and Orem to Memorial and Bunker Hill. Those may have bus now, but it won't be quick.

 

[ToryGattis]

There is no way metro could afford to buy enough self driving cars for the entire city. And as I said before this just pushes toward auto dependency. Here is some reading material for you

http://www.carfreeinbigd.com/2013/11/driverless-cars-and-technology.html?m=1

 

Metro could certainly provide plenty of small self-driving shuttle buses, especially if they're no longer paying for drivers or rail lines.  If people want a private car, that would be a more expensive taxi service, although I think the marginal per-mile cost of using such a taxi service would be roughly the same as owning the car, since the expensive driver is removed from the equation.  Many more people would choose not to own cars and just dial up one when they need one.  That reduces parking requirements too, since the taxi cars are always in circulation instead of parking - and of course that makes density increases easier.  I would think all of those things would appeal to you.

 

So if I'm interpreting this article correctly, the car (automated or not) allows people to live spread out in lower density, which is inherently bad (for unclear reasons), so the car is, ipso facto, bad.  So, unless I'm misunderstanding, there is no logical argument involved here - it's essentially an aesthetic/religious argument: high density living without cars is good, low density living with cars is bad.  Just like religion, you either believe or don't believe.  And arguing/debate is not going to get anywhere.  Got it.

[Slick Vik]

Metro could certainly provide plenty of small self-driving shuttle buses, especially if they're no longer paying for drivers or rail lines. If people want a private car, that would be a more expensive taxi service, although I think the marginal per-mile cost of using such a taxi service would be roughly the same as owning the car, since the expensive driver is removed from the equation. Many more people would choose not to own cars and just dial up one when they need one. That reduces parking requirements too, since the taxi cars are always in circulation instead of parking - and of course that makes density increases easier. I would think all of those things would appeal to you.

So if I'm interpreting this article correctly, the car (automated or not) allows people to live spread out in lower density, which is inherently bad (for unclear reasons), so the car is, ipso facto, bad. So, unless I'm misunderstanding, there is no logical argument involved here - it's essentially an aesthetic/religious argument: high density living without cars is good, low density living with cars is bad. Just like religion, you either believe or don't believe. And arguing/debate is not going to get anywhere. Got it.

There's already zipcar and car2go for this

[ToryGattis]

There's already zipcar and car2go for this

 

They still require pickup, parking, and return.  Not the same as automated shuttles and taxis.

[Slick Vik]

They still require pickup, parking, and return. Not the same as automated shuttles and taxis.

When is your system even going to be a feasible option?

[ToryGattis]

When is your system even going to be a feasible option?

 

2020s seems to be the consensus for commonality, with early models hitting the road later this decade.  Not imminent, but enough to rethink 30-50+ year capital rail projects.

[Slick Vik]

2020s seems to be the consensus for commonality, with early models hitting the road later this decade. Not imminent, but enough to rethink 30-50+ year capital rail projects.

So hold off on proven technology for something that may become? Houston has done that for the last thirty years. Enough is enough. Test your system on Enid, Oklahoma and other such towns to see if it even works before bringing it up in a realistic discussion. And if you say rail is expensive how much would it cost to buy 3 million self driving cars? If they were at a reasonable price of $30,000 that's 90 BILLION dollars. And it puts more stress on the roads which is more maintenance money. And until all cars are self driving the system simply won't work. You build rail in the right corridors it takes cars off the roads, gives developers a reason to invest in the area, and makes it easier to get from one place to the other because of right of way.

[august948]

So hold off on proven technology for something that may become? Houston has done that for the last thirty years. Enough is enough. Test your system on Enid, Oklahoma and other such towns to see if it even works before bringing it up in a realistic discussion. And if you say rail is expensive how much would it cost to buy 3 million self driving cars? If they were at a reasonable price of $30,000 that's 90 BILLION dollars. And it puts more stress on the roads which is more maintenance money. And until all cars are self driving the system simply won't work. You build rail in the right corridors it takes cars off the roads, gives developers a reason to invest in the area, and makes it easier to get from one place to the other because of right of way.

 

Yes.  It makes absolute sense to hold off on implementing 19th century technology in favor of 21st century technology.  No sense in investing years and billions in ral just to have to tear it up again.  Also, those 3 million self driving cars will be purchased by individuals who will already be buying them anyway as demand for cars is not going to drop and at any rate have the option to buy or not buy as they choose.  Everyone, on the other hand, is forced to pay for rail whether we use it or not and whether it makes our lives worse or not.

 

[Slick Vik]

Yes. It makes absolute sense to hold off on implementing 19th century technology in favor of 21st century technology. No sense in investing years and billions in ral just to have to tear it up again. Also, those 3 million self driving cars will be purchased by individuals who will already be buying them anyway as demand for cars is not going to drop and at any rate have the option to buy or not buy as they choose. Everyone, on the other hand, is forced to pay for rail whether we use it or not and whether it makes our lives worse or not.

Everyone, on the other hand, is forced to pay for freeways whether we use it or not and whether it makes our lives worse or not.

[august948]

Everyone, on the other hand, is forced to pay for freeways whether we use it or not and whether it makes our lives worse or not.

 

Next time you're at the grocery store, or a restaurant, or a bar, or just about any kind of store, enjoy what was brought to you courtesy of roads.

 

[Slick Vik]

Next time you're at the grocery store, or a restaurant, or a bar, or just about any kind of store, enjoy what was brought to you courtesy of roads.

See, here's the problem. You insist on roads, roads, and only roads. I try to talk about alternative forms of transportation and you and others try your level best to shut this topic down. You have your roads and plenty of them, why don't you want people to have the rail option also?

[ToryGattis]

So hold off on proven technology for something that may become? Houston has done that for the last thirty years. Enough is enough. Test your system on Enid, Oklahoma and other such towns to see if it even works before bringing it up in a realistic discussion. And if you say rail is expensive how much would it cost to buy 3 million self driving cars? If they were at a reasonable price of $30,000 that's 90 BILLION dollars. And it puts more stress on the roads which is more maintenance money. And until all cars are self driving the system simply won't work. You build rail in the right corridors it takes cars off the roads, gives developers a reason to invest in the area, and makes it easier to get from one place to the other because of right of way.

 

Yes, people are privately paying for new cars all the time.  No extra road stress - same trips that were always being taken.  Self-driving cars are designed to be in mixed traffic with human driven cars.  Google's cars have hundreds of thousands of miles in mixed traffic with no accidents - they've been tested just fine.  No rail system ever built has reduced congestion - look at the data.  Developers build to meet overall demand - any development attracted next to rail is lost in another part of town, so the net economic benefit is neutral.

 

Trying to get the conversation back to its focus, I'm going to give you two scenarios.  Please tell me which you'd prefer to live in and why.

 

Scenario 1: Dense walkable neighborhood.  Your ideal urban paradise.  When you want to go somewhere out of walking range you dial up an automated car or shuttle to come right to where you are and take you directly there. 

 

Scenario 2: Exactly the same dense walkable neighborhood.  You still live in your ideal urban paradise.  But when you want to go somewhere out of walking range, you must walk several blocks to the rail station, wait for it, and then ride it only to destinations linearly along that line near its stops - or otherwise requiring some sort of additional rail or bus transfer to get to another subset of destinations.  A wide range of destinations are not easily reached, or at least not in a very reasonable trip time, because of the required connections and walks.  The trains also run much less frequently at night, greatly reducing evening mobility.

[IronTiger]

So hold off on proven technology for something that may become? Houston has done that for the last thirty years. Enough is enough. Test your system on Enid, Oklahoma and other such towns to see if it even works before bringing it up in a realistic discussion. And if you say rail is expensive how much would it cost to buy 3 million self driving cars? If they were at a reasonable price of $30,000 that's 90 BILLION dollars. And it puts more stress on the roads which is more maintenance money. And until all cars are self driving the system simply won't work. You build rail in the right corridors it takes cars off the roads, gives developers a reason to invest in the area, and makes it easier to get from one place to the other because of right of way.

OK--clearly in the past, issues of price and feasibility haven't fazed you.

All cars don't need to be self-driving, as even the few that are will benefit everyone. With self driving cars, you'll have less people that save 10 seconds by doing something stupid, causing people to break and jams to occur. Or you might have a car that "sees" trouble on the freeway before you do and direct you to an alternate route.

I noticed you didn't have anything to say about my paragraphs about how freeways really don't interrupt walkability, which seems to be what one of your arguments hinges on. Even if a freeway is "mildly uncomfortable" to walk under, Houston's climate gets pretty hot and humid, which makes everything "mildly uncomfortable", which to you would render Houston as unwalkable entirely.

Perhaps this belief has already taken root in your mind, which is why you feel like Houston needs to compensate for its lack of walkability by building lots of (useless) rail lines and scapegoating freeways.

 

See, here's the problem. You insist on roads, roads, and only roads. I try to talk about alternative forms of transportation and you and others try your level best to shut this topic down. You have your roads and plenty of them, why don't you want people to have the rail option also?

 

Remember, the original topic was why freeways are unfairly attacked by people who think they're the scourge of mobility by looking at a perspective that made them so good in the first place (the past is not always wrong). It was not supposed to be a rail/freeway war. To people Slick, rail is welcomed as an addition to a walkable neighborhood, but freeways are not. Why was that? What's wrong with freeways?

[august948]

See, here's the problem. You insist on roads, roads, and only roads. I try to talk about alternative forms of transportation and you and others try your level best to shut this topic down. You have your roads and plenty of them, why don't you want people to have the rail option also?

 

Because, as I see it, the cost/benefit isn't there for rail.  If it could be done privately, then I say go for it.  But that's rarely, if ever, the plan.  So, if we're spending public money we need to get the greatest bang for our bucks.  That would be roads, not rail.