Well That’s certainly not been my experience when visiting Europe. In fact, it many cases it’s been the opposite - having a car would have been restrictive in any major city and a source of friction.
Well to the extent it draws people from public transit, yes because traffic makes being a pedestrian more unpleasant and waymos still are traffic. And increased traffic adds friction to crossing streets and they park obnoxiously, among other things.
So yes, they would be obnoxious at any significant quantity and also not really help with getting across the city since transit is pretty good
Well yes if we’re arbitrary limiting our choice to car based transportation that makes sense for mild climate cities. But why are we insisting on cars being the backbone?
No limits. Each option should be evaluated on its merits.
My contention is that in US cities the high cost of existing rail makes it uncompetitive for most uses, and there is no justification for building new rail.
Maybe not a greenfield project, but rail lines like the NEC could benefit a lot from relatively cheap fixes: removing sharp curves, improving scheduling operations, etc. We just need to get the flywheel going on this in the US
I like Waymo a lot, but the USA desperately needs both transport modes. Don’t think it’s an either/or.
Cars driving at high speed over normal asphalt also generate a lot of tire noies and particulate pollution, even if they are electric cars. I found this video pretty interesting - some cities are experimenting with different road surfaces to reduce noise
This is quite the "I have never lived anywhere else other than North America" take.
Rail and other public transport in pretty much everywhere in the world are designed to serve commute first, tourist stuff second or third.
Public transport isn't just having some trains, or having only trains between major cities. It is designing whole commute routes from various urban and suburban areas to workplace. There needs to be regional and suburban links that arrive to metro and tram stations. Metro and tram have to operate very frequently to handle commuters. The frequency of the trains should adapt to the commuters in the morning and evening. They need to be convenient, clean and safe too.
Cities around the world are also much better balanced than NA ones. The workplaces and living areas are almost always mixed rather than having a "downtown" area where every office worker travels to. My area has many buildings with a supermarket, apartments and small offices in the same building. There are two car factories in the city next to one of the biggest urban parks.
I'm a European who has emigrated to the US, and knows both sides pretty well.
I agree that European trains work very well for commuting to and from the center of big cities. That's where the jobs and tourist attractions are.
But to go between arbitrary places A and B is usually quite painful. Often the best way is to go to the center, and then from there to your destination.
When I moved to the US and got a car, it was an unreal feeling! I could quickly travel anywhere at anytime!! Practically it felt like my comfortable travel radius increased from 10km to 50km.
> Trains are great when going to tourist attractions, especially in the center of old cities. When you live and work in a city, they're much less practical.
This is the most "tell me you live in America without telling me you live in America" thing I've seen in a long time...
America basically the only place in the world where in its cities, trains and other public transport aren't a major part of people's lives. In other places (Seoul, Tokyo, many European cities, etc.), even people who own a car will sometimes commute via train due to the convenience.
Would a Waymo that you don't have to store, park, fuel, or maintain have been restrictive?