[JumpCrisscross]

> 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.

[danaris]

> 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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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.

[danaris]

Are you also limiting scope to the American Southwest?

Because my understanding is that current self-driving technology is also nowhere near being able to handle inclement weather, especially snow.