The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[Guest]

Never met a tax that you do not like? Truly a progressive viewpoint. Why not just propose a $100 fee per concert and sporting event ticket? And a special BBQ and Beer tax ... 

Those are not solutions they are fairy tales...

 

11 hours ago, grilled_cheese said:

Legalize and tax weed.  Tax the churches.  Tax the suburbanites who are straining our interstate and road systems because they want a McMansion 45 minutes from the "scary" urban core. 

I embrace solutions, not excuses.

 

[Guest]

....and the future as they say is only a moment away. 

Self-driving to autonomous mass-transit is not a large leap.

Uber Self-driving-fleet

[Guest]

and again...

Forget self-driving cars, How about a self-flying taxi...

[dmillsphoto]

1 minute ago, nashville_bound said:

and again...

Forget self-driving cars, How about a self-flying taxi...

Not happening. FAA won't permit Tony to build a 1057' tower, they're not permitting this in any foreseeable time frame.

[ruraljuror]

1 hour ago, nashville_bound said:

Never met a tax that you do not like? Truly a progressive viewpoint. Why not just propose a $100 fee per concert and sporting event ticket? And a special BBQ and Beer tax ... 

Those are not solutions they are fairy tales...

 

 

Weed has already been legalized and is taxed in several states.  As for taxing the suburbanites, toll roads aren't some made-up fantasy scenario like the straw men arguments you pulled out of thin air ($100 fee per concert/sporting events?).  

The only "fairy tale" that Grilled Cheese brought up was taxing religious institutions, which is ironic, though not quite as ironic as when unproven technological solutions are promoted by folks of a certain political persuasion that tends to defund scientific programs and downplay if not outright deny scientific consensus.  

 

[Will]

What about a country tchotchke tax? 5% of every Johnny Cash shirt, cowboy hat, Porter Wagoner bobblehead, and pair of boots sold in Davidson County. Or just Lower Broad. We'd pay for this bad boy in no time. 

[nashvylle]

1 hour ago, nashville_bound said:

....and the future as they say is only a moment away. 

Self-driving to autonomous mass-transit is not a large leap.

Uber Self-driving-fleet

How is this going to reduce traffic? Whether the road is full of driverless cars or cars with drivers, isn't it all the same? I feel uber will reduce the need for more parking garages rather than mass transit.

 

[Vrtigo]

12 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

How is this going to reduce traffic? Whether the road is full of driverless cars or cars with drivers, isn't it all the same? I feel uber will reduce the need for more parking garages rather than mass transit.

 

It won't as long as we're stuck in this one-car-one-person mentality--you're absolutely right. However, Uber, et al. are rapidly expanding services such as UberPOOL which are specifically designed to carry multiple riders in the same car.

I hope we rapidly become more comfortable with the thought...

[nashvylle]

25 minutes ago, Vrtigo said:

It won't as long as we're stuck in this one-car-one-person mentality--you're absolutely right. However, Uber, et al. are rapidly expanding services such as UberPOOL which are specifically designed to carry multiple riders in the same car.

I hope we rapidly become more comfortable with the thought...

true, but the potential for car pooling services has been around since cars have been around. Now that taxis and uber have pool services, it will not be nearly enough to solve Nashville's traffic problems. 

Uber pool will be part of the solution, however, yes, but not the solution (not implying you are saying it is the solution, either..)

[L'burgnative]

Even with a single occupant Autonomous vehicles all on the road; traffic still gets better.  If all things are working (in my line of work I promise censors and instrumentation does go bad) the roads we currently have become more efficient.  Imagine how much better traffic would be in Nashville without a wreck or two inbound or outbound routes depending on time of day; with Autonomous vehicles that becomes possible.  How about rather than 70mph (or if your in Nashville; you're on your brakes more than the gas) on the interstate with autonomous vehicles we're now doing 120mph and a foot behind the car in front of us.  One problem is it's going to be much longer than 2020 before that happens.  Autonomous vehicles may arrive by 2020, but I doubt everyone's going to be driving them by 2020.

[PruneTracy]

48 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

How is this going to reduce traffic? Whether the road is full of driverless cars or cars with drivers, isn't it all the same?

Not exactly. Autonomous vehicles could utilize roadways more efficiently than drivers, by following at higher speeds with less headway, communicating with other vehicles to avoid the need for conventional traffic control at intersections, etc. Autonomous vehicles also might not be susceptible to the behaviors displayed by drivers that cause traffic congestion, such as wave effects.

Of course this is all hypothetical and I would caution anyone here against being overly optimistic in the roll-outs of these technologies, both in time and scope.

[nashvylle]

14 minutes ago, PruneTracy said:

Not exactly. Autonomous vehicles could utilize roadways more efficiently than drivers, by following at higher speeds with less headway, communicating with other vehicles to avoid the need for conventional traffic control at intersections, etc. Autonomous vehicles also might not be susceptible to the behaviors displayed by drivers that cause traffic congestion, such as wave effects.

Of course this is all hypothetical and I would caution anyone here against being overly optimistic in the roll-outs of these technologies, both in time and scope.

Driverless cars can be much more efficient than drivers, but if there are 2 million people in the greater Nashville area using 1 million driverless cars... there's a limit to how "efficient" these cars will be in reducing traffic. 

We need both mass transit AND technological advances of driverless cars. 

[CenterHill]

1 hour ago, nashvylle said:

How is this going to reduce traffic? Whether the road is full of driverless cars or cars with drivers, isn't it all the same? I feel uber will reduce the need for more parking garages rather than mass transit.

 

The theory on autonomous cars reducing congestion is based, in part, on studies that take into account how much of the congestion in an urban area is caused by drivers looking for parking.  The driver reaches his/her destination and then spends an average of x minutes on adjoining streets looking for a parking space.   The driverless car, by contrast, would find the most efficient route to the destination, using real-time traffic data, would drop its passenger at the destination and then leave the area.   I've seen such studies and I think that is the logic.    Not necessarily that driverless cars would result in fewer accidents.     

[nashvylle]

9 minutes ago, CenterHill said:

The theory on autonomous cars reducing congestion is based, in part, on studies that take into account how much of the congestion in an urban area is caused by drivers looking for parking.  The driver reaches his/her destination and then spends an average of x minutes on adjoining streets looking for a parking space.   The driverless car, by contrast, would find the most efficient route to the destination, using real-time traffic data, would drop its passenger at the destination and then leave the area.   I've seen such studies and I think that is the logic.    Not necessarily that driverless cars would result in fewer accidents.     

Understand and agree but that theory doesn't help traffic on the interstate or on west end if we don't invest in mass transit as well, and everyone's only option is a driverless car. 

[CenterHill]

2 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

Understand and agree but that theory doesn't help traffic on the interstate or on west end if we don't invest in mass transit as well, and everyone's only option is a driverless car. 

Totally agree.    It's one leg of the stool.   

[rookzie]

On 8/17/2016 at 8:05 AM, dmillsphoto said:

A fun, if tongue and cheek, look at why trains in America suck. 
 

..From the "Choir", someone finally has heard me.

[smeagolsfree]

1 hour ago, nashvylle said:

Understand and agree but that theory doesn't help traffic on the interstate or on west end if we don't invest in mass transit as well, and everyone's only option is a driverless car. 

Bet you it will be a Beaman Toyota driverless car too.

[Guest]

You have proven my fantasy world suspicions.... ha, there is zero change of Pot being legal and taxed in TN in the foreseeable future. And equating taxing suburbanites (the horror) to pay for toll-roads to slapping a tax on them for mass-transit is delusional...thus why I brought up the other outlandish taxing options ( I must not have been clear enough for you).

And if your infantile attack on religion makes you feel important have at it...

Responding to the post shown below...
 

Edited August 18, 2016 by Guest

[Neigeville2]

Driverless cars may eventually replace ones with drivers-look what horseless carriages did to the horse-drawn ones-but I wouldn't postpone anything waiting for a new technology that has yet to be scaled to anything like the needed level.  Too many innovations have been announced and then never been implemented successfully.  

(I take Musk's pronouncements on cars with a grain of salt--Look at "Elon Musk's Hyperloop", still being deceptively marketed to governments under that label, when they've actually given up on the idea--what they're selling now is a just maglev train in a partial vacuum, a completely different idea and not a new one.)

I don't think autonomous cars will change the desire for trains/trams/etc in dense areas, and they certainly won't make ride sharing practical in outlying areas where a car might take a while to arrive.

Incidentally, has anyone calculated how much traffic is created by Uber type vehicles wandering around high-traffic areas waiting for fares?  If I understand their system, a driver has to be near the fare to get it.  Competing for-profit fleets of autonomous vehicles might choke downtown areas with cars trying to be the closest to each new fare.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

Weed has already been legalized and is taxed in several states.  As for taxing the suburbanites, toll roads aren't some made-up fantasy scenario like the straw men arguments you pulled out of thin air ($100 fee per concert/sporting events?).  

The only "fairy tale" that Grilled Cheese brought up was taxing religious institutions, which is ironic, though not quite as ironic as when unproven technological solutions are promoted by folks of a certain political persuasion that tends to defund scientific programs and downplay if not outright deny scientific consensus.  

 

 

[dmillsphoto]

https://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/296-nashville-coffee-house/

[ruraljuror]

16 minutes ago, nashville_bound said:

 

Didn't mean to strike a nerve there, NB.  My point wasn't meant to be an attack on religion (which I think we can probably agree that 'attack' is an overly harsh word given the actual religiously motivated attacks that happen daily), only that to any given person, all other religions to which they don't ascribe might as well be fairy tales.  Really, I wasn't even trying to make a point, just highlighting some irony and making a play on words as a segue into my larger point that it can be hypocritical to promote future technologies as a solution to present problems while simultaneously underfunding and discrediting scientific research.  In any case, sorry if I stepped on your toes there and rest assured that nothing I've ever written on a message board has ever made me feel more important.

Whether or not weed will ever be legalized or whether tolls will be enacted specifically to fund mass transit is entirely dependent on the will of the voters and legislators of Tennessee.  You may be correct that neither will happen in the foreseeable future, but that's because of political reasons, not because of the laws of physics or some kind of preordained condition.  Should the motivation be there, these changes could literally be enacted overnight.  Perhaps it is a fantasy or a fairy tale to think that either will happen soon enough to be relevant to these conversations, but tipping points are notoriously hard to detect before they've been reached and you never know what the voters and legislators might be willing to try if the situation gets bad enough.  

Regardless, the solutions Grilled Cheese proposed may be fairy tales in TN for the forseeable future, but it's hard for me to seriously believe that you think these kind of changes (which have already happened in other parts of the county/world) are less realistic than flying taxis as the solution to our traffic woes...

 

 

 

 

 

[smeagolsfree]

Thanks for self moderating. It's important to read what you post and sometimes they come across wrong.

[Guest]

Another example of disruptive transportation that is here NOW.....

Local Motors to produce Olli self-driving vehicle in Knoxville

 

The Olli, which Local Motors unveiled at its Maryland facility in June, resembles a small van or minibus and can carry up to 12 people. It is electrically powered and designed to be operated as part of a fleet.

"We see cities purchasing Olli to fill gaps in their existing transportation systems," Keidel said. "Universities may purchase them to transport students safely across campus."

Large companies might use them to transport people across a campus or even amusement parks might use them to shuttle people to and from their cars, she said.

For now, Olli is in use on public roads in Washington, D.C., and is slated for use in Miami-Dade County, Fla. and in Las Vegas later this year.

[smeagolsfree]

I guess when Olli crashes the death toll goes up dramatically.